measure, application, segment, industry (masi) · irrigation measures domestic water heaters water...

This document is confidential and proprietary in its entirety. It may be copied and distributed solely for the purpose of evaluation.

© 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

Measure, Application, Segment,

Industry (MASI):

Agriculture

Prepared for:

Southern California Edison

Navigant Consulting, Inc.

One Market Street

Spear Street Tower, Suite 1200

San Francisco, CA 940105

415.399.2109

www.navigant.com

Reference No.: 170661

March 31, 2015

Confidential and Proprietary Page i Southern California Edison, Agriculture Market Segmentation and Characterization Study

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. iv

Key Findings ................................................................................................................................................... v Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................ ix

1 MASI Description ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1.2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 5 1.1.3 In-Depth Interviews ............................................................................................................. 6

2 Market and Industry Analysis........................................................................................ 9

2.1 Industry Characterization .................................................................................................................. 9 2.1.1 Greenhouses ........................................................................................................................ 10 2.1.2 Irrigated Agriculture .......................................................................................................... 13

2.2 Initiatives to Date .............................................................................................................................. 15 2.2.1 Federal Initiatives ............................................................................................................... 16 2.2.2 California Initiatives ........................................................................................................... 17

2.3 Codes and Standards ........................................................................................................................ 17 2.4 Common Equipment Practices ........................................................................................................ 18

2.4.1 Greenhouses and Nurseries .............................................................................................. 18 2.4.2 Irrigated Agriculture .......................................................................................................... 28

2.5 Decision Making ................................................................................................................................ 41 2.5.1 Greenhouses ........................................................................................................................ 41 2.5.2 Irrigated Agriculture .......................................................................................................... 42

2.6 Key Drivers and Market Trends ..................................................................................................... 43 2.6.1 Market Trends in California Greenhouses and Nurseries ............................................ 44 2.6.2 Market Trends in California Irrigated Agriculture ........................................................ 45

2.7 Key Barriers ........................................................................................................................................ 46 2.7.1 Greenhouse-Specific Barriers ............................................................................................ 47 2.7.2 Irrigated Agriculture-Specific Barriers ............................................................................ 48

2.8 Key Findings and Energy Savings Opportunities ........................................................................ 49 2.8.1 General Findings ................................................................................................................. 49 2.8.2 Greenhouse Findings ......................................................................................................... 49 2.8.3 Irrigated Agriculture Findings .......................................................................................... 50

3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 52

Appendix A References .................................................................................................. A-1

Appendix B Program Manager Interview Guide ..................................................... B-1

Confidential and Proprietary Page ii Southern California Edison, Agriculture Market Segmentation and Characterization Study

B.1 Program Manager Introduction Questions .................................................................................. B-1 B.2 General Future Program Opportunities ........................................................................................ B-2

Appendix C Subject Matter Expert Interview Guides ............................................. C-1

C.1 Greenhouses..................................................................................................................................... C-1 C.2 Irrigated Agriculture ...................................................................................................................... C-6

Appendix D Grower Interview Guide ....................................................................... D-1

D.1 Greenhouses..................................................................................................................................... D-1 D.2 Irrigated Agriculture ...................................................................................................................... D-7

Appendix E Environmental Trends .......................................................................... E-12

Confidential and Proprietary Page iii Southern California Edison, Agriculture Market Segmentation and Characterization Study

List of Figures and Tables

Figures:

Figure 1. Proportion of Natural Gas Sales by Segment ..................................................................................... 11 Figure 2. Proportion of Electricity Sales by Segment ......................................................................................... 14 Figure 3. Irrigation Methods Survey Share of System Type (All Crop Types) .............................................. 29 Figure 5. Observed and Projected Temperature Change in the Southwest, Compared to a 1960-1979

Baseline Period .....................................................................................................................................................E-12 Figure 6. Spring Precipitation Change for 2080-2099 Compared to 1961-1979 under Two Emissions

Scenarios ...............................................................................................................................................................E-13

Tables:

Table ES-1. High-Level Greenhouse Technology List for Review ..................................................................... v Table ES-2. High-Level Irrigation Technologies ................................................................................................... v Table 1. High-Level Greenhouse Technology List for Review ........................................................................... 2 Table 2. Greenhouse Equipment Research Questions ......................................................................................... 3 Table 3. High-Level Irrigation Technologies ........................................................................................................ 4 Table 4. Irrigation Research Questions .................................................................................................................. 5 Table 5. Completed SME Interviews by Market Segment .................................................................................. 6 Table 6. Disposition Report for Grower Calls ....................................................................................................... 7 Table 7. Geographic Location of Greenhouse Grower Respondents ................................................................. 7 Table 8. Geographic Location of Irrigated Agriculture Grower Respondents ................................................. 8 Table 9. Number of Respondents per Size Category ........................................................................................... 8 Table 8. Greenhouse Respondent Crop Types ................................................................................................... 10 Table 9. USDA Census Data for California Greenhouses and Nurseries ....................................................... 12 Table 10. Irrigated Agriculture Respondent Crop Types .................................................................................. 13 Table 11. USDA Census Data for California Irrigated Acreage by Crop, 2012 .............................................. 15 Table 12. Building Shell Materials on Respondents' Greenhouses .................................................................. 22 Table 13. Building Shell Materials on Respondents' Greenhouses .................................................................. 23 Table 14. VFD Installations in Greenhouses ....................................................................................................... 26 Table 15. HVAC and Process Measures in Greenhouses .................................................................................. 28 Table 16. FRIS Data for California Land Irrigated by Water Distribution Type ............................................ 30 Table 17. California Land Irrigated by Low-Flow Water Distribution Type .................................................. 30 Table 18. Irrigation System Types on Respondents' Farms .............................................................................. 31 Table 19. Respondents’ Operating Pressures by System Type ......................................................................... 35 Table 20. Pumps and Motors on Respondents' Farms ....................................................................................... 38 Table 21. VFD Installations on Irrigated Farms .................................................................................................. 40

Confidential and Proprietary Page iv Southern California Edison, Agriculture Market Segmentation and Characterization Study

Executive Summary

This Agriculture Measure, Application, Segment, and Industry (MASI) study details findings from

Navigant Consulting, Inc.’s (Navigant’s) research into the current equipment installation, usage, and

maintenance practices in the California agricultural industry. Navigant focused on current practices in

the California agricultural market, with the goal of helping utilities understand equipment and systems

installation and usage patterns. Navigant also explored energy-related market trends, drivers, and

barriers to energy-efficiency adoption, as well as growers’ decision-making processes with respect to

energy usage and equipment installation. Navigant has provided recommendations to help program

planners in future program design efforts.

Based on project scoping discussions with the California investor-owned utilities (IOUs), Navigant

focused its research on the following two distinct market segments:

» Greenhouse equipment and installation practices (greenhouses)

» Agricultural irrigation design and usage (irrigated agriculture)

For the greenhouse portion of this study, Navigant conducted primary and secondary research to

identify current and emerging installation practices in California greenhouses. With input from the

California IOUs, Navigant identified the following measures listed in Table ES-1 as key areas of focus.

Confidential and Proprietary Page v Southern California Edison, Agriculture Market Segmentation and Characterization Study

Table ES-1. High-Level Greenhouse Technology List for Review

End Use Technology Type

Greenhouse [process-related] building shell

measures

Shade cloths

Infrared film

Shell insulation and glazing

Thermal or heat curtains

Greenhouse [process-related] HVAC

measures

Boilers

Condenser fans

Unit heaters

Geothermal heat pumps

Bench (radiant) heating

Pumps and motors

VFDs

Irrigation measures Domestic water heaters

Water recycling

Source: Agriculture MASI Scope of Work

For the irrigated agriculture portion of the study, Navigant and the California IOUs developed the

following list of key areas of focus given in Table ES-2.

Table ES-2. High-Level Irrigation Technologies


Irrigation System Components

Irrigation delivery systems

Water purification systems

Moisture level sensors

Pumps and motors

VFDs

Pump System Maintenance Pump efficiency testing


Key Findings

This section summarizes key findings from Navigant’s research efforts. The main body of the report

provides additional context and further findings pertaining to greenhouses and irrigated agriculture.

Confidential and Proprietary Page vi Southern California Edison, Agriculture Market Segmentation and Characterization Study

General Findings

For both the greenhouse and irrigated agriculture market segments, the commodity drives growers’

equipment installation and usage practices. While growers consider water and energy efficiency to an

extent, their primary concern is the health and yield of their crops. Growers will select equipment based

on the needs of the crop that they are growing. This may mean that growers will forgo systems that are

more efficient because the crop requires more water to grow. For example, rice requires high amounts of

water; therefore, rice growers may continue to use flood irrigation for these crops, as low-flow systems

may hurt the crop or decrease a farmers’ yield.

The source of an operation’s irrigation water can also play a large role in growers’ equipment decisions,

particularly in irrigated agriculture operations. For example, farms with access to a municipal water

source or close proximity to a river will have fewer expenses related to water pumping than farms that

require drilling new wells or pumping water long distances. When approaching a grower with programs

and information, utilities should consider the operation’s crop types and water sources rather than

categorizing an operation by its acreage, square footage, or energy consumption. Addressing the market

by crop type could help utilities to distinguish between late adopters and farmers who use water-

intensive systems because their crops require it. Utilities can then address these late adopters directly to

identify barriers to technological adoption.

Growers remain very cost-constrained in their operations, and continue to rely on rebates for many of

their energy-efficiency upgrades. The agricultural industry is moving toward efficiency; however,

growers report that this is largely out of necessity. Many growers continue to struggle financially, and a

number of greenhouses have gone out of business within the last decade. Rebates for high-efficiency

equipment play a critical role in growers’ ability to install high-efficiency equipment, and can help them

to stay in business. Grower interviews suggest this may apply to both large and small operations.

Because of the importance of the agricultural market to California’s economy, and because of the

tenuous financial situation of many agricultural operations, utility incentives can provide some financial

relief to growers who are otherwise unable to install efficient equipment.

Greenhouse Findings

California’s greenhouse and nursery segment is increasingly facing competition from other markets,

particularly in South America. For example, in the last decade, California’s rose industry has shrunk

considerably throughout the state. This decline has occurred primarily due to price competition with

countries such as Ecuador and Mexico, where the cost of production is significantly lower than that of

California roses. While some growers have gone out of business due to this market loss, others have

mitigated the impact by shifting focus to other products, such as Gerbera daisies. The increasing

competition from international markets has created uncertainty in the market, and has caused some

growers to be increasingly cost-conscious and risk averse.

Energy saving opportunities exist within the greenhouse sector, particularly with respect to the

building shell. Interviews for this MASI study indicated that in the absence of utility programs, growers

likely would revert to installing single-layer polyethylene film as replacement measures. According to

Confidential and Proprietary Page vii Southern California Edison, Agriculture Market Segmentation and Characterization Study

SME interviews, some greenhouse growers are so cost-conscious that they will occasionally buy used

materials from a neighboring greenhouse if the other greenhouse is retrofitting their buildings. One large

grower confirmed this, stating that if there is no rebate available for upgrading his greenhouse material,

he will “scavenge” walls from another area in his greenhouse that require less heat. This may not be the

case for new construction greenhouses, for which all but one, large grower installed at least double-layer

polyethylene plastic. However, there are higher-efficiency materials available for greenhouse shells that

may be under-incentivized when compared to the materials that utilities currently incentivize. This is

especially true when considering the measure life of the different materials. There may be opportunities

to increase efficiency by promoting rebates for higher-efficiency materials, such as polycarbonate or

acrylic. Other shell measures, such as heat curtains and shade cloths, may present additional energy

saving opportunities. Navigant’s interviews suggested that growers may choose to use these materials

based on the needs and sensitivity of their crop, and these rebates therefore may be more applicable for

certain crop types rather than for the industry as a whole.

Although large growers tend to have more capital to invest in efficiency opportunities than small

growers do, the volume of equipment that large must replace can place cost constraints on large

growers’ efficiency efforts, as well. . Large growers arguably have more available funding to pursue

energy efficiency than small growers have. However, because of the sheer amount of equipment that

they must repair or upgrade regularly, large growers must pace their upgrades due to cost constraints.

Grower and subject matter expert (SME) interviews revealed that many large growers will put off

equipment upgrades or will revert to lower-efficiency options if there is no incentive available because

they cannot afford to install higher-efficiency equipment. If utilities were to discontinue rebates for large

greenhouse growers, the industry may revert to low-efficiency equipment or practices.

The use of variable frequency drives (VFDs) is becoming more common in greenhouses. However,

growers interviewed typically only use VFDs on large well pumps. There may be efficiency

opportunities in offering VFDs on pumps and motors within the greenhouses themselves. With the

increasing penetration of water recycling and purification systems, and with the potential for increased

use of conveyance for moving plant beds, VFDs may offer increased efficiency for these pumps and

motors. However, VFDs are not appropriate on all motors, so utilities should consider conducting

targeted research into VFDs in greenhouses to pinpoint realistic savings opportunities for this measure.

As growers turn toward automated vent controls and other automated systems, the industry may see a

corresponding increase in use of small motors. Many growers also use small fans for air movement.

Growers reported that they typically do not repair these fans, as the labor costs are too high to warrant

regular repair. Growers stated that they replace these fans regularly, and did not appear to prioritize

energy efficiency in small fans.

Irrigated Agriculture Findings

Irrigated agriculture growers are increasingly aware of energy-efficiency opportunities, but cost

concerns drive their equipment decisions. Grower interviews suggest that farmers who pursue

efficiency measures do so either because they understand the long-term savings that they will achieve

with the installation, or because there was an incentive available to make high-efficiency measures cost-

Confidential and Proprietary Page viii Southern California Edison, Agriculture Market Segmentation and Characterization Study

competitive. Farmers rely heavily on their contractors for information about potential savings and

rebates. However, according to growers, contractors and utility staff now have less time to discuss

efficiency opportunities with them due to increased interest in efficient measures across the industry.

Some growers claimed that they are “at the whim” of contractors, and that contractors’ schedules may

not always align with those of the farmers. Due to time constraints, some farmers have begun installing

their own equipment. If this continues, it may result in missed opportunities in efficiency, as growers’

top priority is to get their equipment running rather than focus on system optimization or efficiency.

There may be opportunities for utilities to perform system optimization reviews beyond the standard

pump efficiency testing to ensure that farmers have properly designed and installed their systems.

Farmers are increasingly aware of the benefits of VFDs, although VFDs are more common in large

farms and on larger pumps. According to grower interviews, small- and medium-sized growers are less

likely to have VFDs on their pumps, and are also less likely to see the benefits of VFDs. Educating and

offering incentives to smaller farms may therefore present an opportunity for future potential savings.

This opportunity will be particularly relevant if the market continues to move away from gravity-based

systems and toward pressurized systems such as drip because pressurized systems may require

increased pumping. Utilities should consider conducting targeted research into VFD applications to

determine which equipment on small farms is appropriate for VFDs.

The industry is trending toward low-flow, pressurized irrigation systems. However, some utility staff

expressed concerns about the exclusion of microsprinklers from the utilities’ rebate package. The

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) recently removed incentives for microsprinklers for tree crops

and vineyards due to ISP concerns, although the incentive is still available for field crops. Utility account

executives, however, stated that these estimates failed to take into account certain factors related to

usage, and that the utility should continue to include them as an agricultural incentive. According to

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) data, the use of microsprinklers has actually declined

since 2008, and therefore there may be energy savings available in this technology. Utilities may want to

consider reevaluating potential savings for this technology and reconsider its inclusion in program

offerings.

The irrigated agriculture market is moving toward the use of computerized systems to determine the

timing and quantity of their irrigation and fertilization practices. Although farmers see the benefits of

these systems, the upfront cost of the technology often prohibits farmers of all sizes from using these

technologies on a broad scale. Farmers are typically only able to afford one or two moisture sensors,

although they may have thousands of irrigated acres in operation. There may be energy saving

opportunities present in computerized systems, but utilities should ensure that the products they

incentivize are reliable, easy to use, and that the company is on-track to remain in business into the

future. If utilities do promote these computerized systems, they should also ensure that growers

understand how to use the systems; otherwise, they may not achieve the highest amount of savings

possible.

Confidential and Proprietary Page ix Southern California Edison, Agriculture Market Segmentation and Characterization Study

Recommendations

Schedule program marketing around the growing season, and conduct field tests, verifications,

installations, and rebates according to this schedule. Growers’ primary concern is that their equipment

is functioning properly during the planting, growing, and harvest seasons. Growers will therefore take

any action necessary to ensure their equipment is running, including installing lower-efficiency

equipment if it is available at the time they need it. If utilities do not align field tests with growers’

schedules, growers will be far less likely to install equipment that requires these field tests. Furthermore,

if growers must wait to install equipment until utilities can conduct a pre-inspection, then growers may

forgo the incentive and install whatever equipment is available. This may lead to growers installing

lower-efficiency equipment. By scheduling inspections and installations around the growing season,

utilities are more likely to encourage growers to install higher-efficiency equipment.

Focus on educating contractors on efficiency opportunities, and develop relationships with these

contractors. Contractors are an important source of information for agricultural growers when it comes

to energy efficiency. However, not all contractors believe that measures such as VFDs offer energy

savings. Furthermore, due to uncertainty surrounding rebate availability, some contractors avoid

promoting utility programs, as any variance in the rebate amount or the time that it takes to receive a

rebate can reflect poorly on the contractor. Utilities should work with contractors to ensure that they

understand the benefits of efficient equipment. In doing so, utilities may gain increased trust from their

contractors, and contractors, in turn, may be more inclined to promote high-efficiency measures.

Incorporate system optimization services into program offerings, in addition to pump efficiency

testing. Most irrigated agriculture respondents stated that they use the operating pressures from the

original system design. However, both utility staff and SMEs expressed concern over the original

designs. Respondents suggested that designers might overestimate the operating pressures to

compensate for error, which would unnecessarily increase energy use. Furthermore, settings may

naturally alter with the operation of the system over time. Utilities should take a systemic approach to

ensure that all components of a growers’ irrigation system are working synergistically and efficiently.

This may be more relevant for larger farms than for smaller farms; however, utilities should explore

potential savings in each. Utilities could provide these services to both irrigated agriculture and

greenhouse customers as an extension of their pump efficiency program. By offering system

optimization services, utilities could achieve increased savings from the system as a whole, as well as

gain a better understanding of how growers are designing their systems.

Consider incentivizing moisture sensors and other information-based technologies. Responses from

the interviews in this MASI suggest that the market already may be moving toward incorporating

computerized controls or information systems into their irrigation planning and systems operation. This

is true both of irrigated agriculture and of greenhouse operators. However, because of cost constraints,

some farmers who are interested in these technologies are having trouble incorporating moisture sensors

and other technologies across their operations, particularly for irrigated agriculture farmers. Incentives

from utilities could help farmers invest further in this equipment, which could result in both energy and

water conservation. However, while these systems typically can monitor factors such as energy and

water use, growers must account for other factors such as fertilization, weather, and other environmental

Confidential and Proprietary Page x Southern California Edison, Agriculture Market Segmentation and Characterization Study

concerns. Therefore, any monitoring system that utilities might promote to growers would need to

incorporate tracking other key factors in addition to energy and water usage.

Look at small- and medium-sized pumps, as well as large pumps, for efficiency opportunities in

irrigated agriculture. While there are obvious savings available in targeting efficiency measures for large

pumps, both large and small growers often use smaller pumps, as well. In particular, smaller farms with

smaller irrigated plots may use small to mediums sized pumps for irrigation. Large farmers also tend to

operate plots that can be geographically distant from each other, and may therefore use small- to

medium-sized pumps for these plots. By targeting small- to medium-sized pumps as an area for

efficiency opportunities, rebates and efficiency information can apply to farmers of all sizes, rather than

simply targeting larger farms. This program offering can increase participation, as it is relevant to the

entire market segment.

Work with other utilities and agricultural entities to establish a database of system designs by crop

and region. Despite individual reports that various groups have conducted over the years, the

agricultural industry still lacks a comprehensive database of individual producers in the market, and

their respective on-farm equipment components. The lack of a comprehensive database makes it difficult

to establish baselines, to identify market trends, and to maintain communication with growers. Utilities

and the California agriculture industry, as a whole, could benefit from an agricultural saturation study

similar to California’s Residential Appliance Saturation Study (RASS) or Commercial End-Use Survey

(CEUS). California’s IOUs should work with the CPUC, municipal and irrigation district utilities,

agricultural extensions, and trade associations to establish a framework for a study such as this, taking

into account the need for granularity at a region and crop-specific level. This would require a significant

amount of effort at the beginning of the process. However, once the utilities have created a framework

and completed the first round of data collection efforts, regular updates would allow utilities and other

market actors to gain a clearer understanding of equipment baselines and practices in the market.

Confidential and Proprietary Page 1 Southern California Edison, Agriculture Market Segmentation and Characterization Study

1 MASI Description

This Agriculture Measure, Application, Segment, and Industry (MASI) study details findings from

Navigant Consulting, Inc.’s (Navigant) research into the current equipment installation, usage, and

maintenance practices in the California agricultural industry. Navigant’s research focused on current

practices in the California agricultural market, with the goal of understanding equipment and systems

installation and usage patterns. Navigant also explored agricultural market trends, drivers, and barriers

to energy-efficiency adoption, as well as growers’ decision-making processes in respect to energy usage

and equipment installation. Navigant has provided recommendations to help program planners in

future program design efforts.

The California agriculture market consists of a variety of market segments, which Navigant’s 2010-2012

Agriculture Market Characterization (hereafter the “Market Characterization”) study explored in detail. For

the 2014-2015 Agriculture MASI study, the California investor-owned utilities (IOUs) were primarily

interested in greenhouses and irrigated agriculture. Therefore, the Navigant team excluded from this

study agriculture segments such as refrigerated warehouses, post-harvest processing, and dairies, except

in the context where dairymen grow crops for cattle feed. The team instead focused their research efforts

on the following agriculture market segments:

» Greenhouses & Nurseries, Including Floriculture

» Irrigated Agriculture Segments:

o Field Crops

o Fruit and Tree Nut

o Vine Crops (Including Vineyards & Wineries)

Based on project scoping discussions with the California IOUs, Navigant focused its research on the

following two distinct market segments:

» Greenhouse equipment and installation practices (greenhouses)

» Agricultural irrigation design and usage (irrigated agriculture)

The following subsections further describe the research approach that Navigant took to address each of

these research areas.


1.1.1.1 Greenhouse Equipment and Installation Practices

The purpose of the greenhouse portion of this MASI study was to identify current and emerging

installation practices in California greenhouses. Navigant conducted primary and secondary research

to identify current and emerging installation practices in California greenhouses. With input from the

California IOUs, Navigant identified the following measures listed in Table 1 as key areas of focus.

Table 1. High-Level Greenhouse Technology List for Review


Greenhouse [process-related] building shell

measures

Shade cloths

Infrared film

Shell insulation and glazing


Greenhouse [process-related] HVAC

measures

Boilers

Condenser fans

Unit heaters



Pumps and motors

VFDs

Irrigation measures Domestic water heaters

Water recycling



In addition to determining the installation practices for these particular measures, Navigant also

addressed a number of other research questions related to growers’ decision-making processes and

equipment usage. Table 2 lists these research questions.

Table 2. Greenhouse Equipment Research Questions

Research Question

What are the standard equipment installation practices for greenhouse growers?

- What equipment are greenhouse growers installing without program incentives?

- How does this differ between replacement vs. new construction?

- What factors influence growers’ equipment choices?

- What factors influence growers’ decisions to retrofit vs. replace equipment?

- How do growers determine whether to replace on burnout vs. replace early?

- What are the thresholds for payback and ROI that must be met for early replacement?

- Who are the decision-makers and influencers?*

How do these replacement practices differ between large and small operations?

- What is the best way to define ‘large’ vs. ‘small’ operations for program planning purposes?

What will be standard equipment practices in the future?

- What equipment is becoming common and what is state-of-the-art?

- What are the trends for emerging or mature energy-efficient equipment in markets such as

Europe, and can the California market apply these developments?

What equipment do the IOUs currently rebate?

- Is any of this equipment currently ‘standard practice’ and should it be removed from the list of

common equipment practices?

- Which equipment would be the most reliable source of savings for IOU programs?

- How does this differ between existing buildings and new construction?

To what extent do utilities’ programs influence growers’ replacement practices?

*In the 2010-2012 Market Characterization, Navigant identified decision-makers and elements of the

decision-making process for equipment replacement. The Navigant team will use this study to build on

this information and determine whether this has changed. Source: Agriculture MASI Scope of Work


1.1.1.2 Agricultural Irrigation Design and Usage

The irrigated agriculture portion of this study defines prevalent irrigation system designs within

California’s irrigated agriculture segment. Per the IOUs’ request, Navigant focused the 2014-2015 MASI

study on farmers’ current installation practices rather than on future trends. For the irrigated agriculture

portion of the study, Navigant and the California IOUs also developed the following list of key areas of

focus shown in Table 3.

Table 3. High-Level Irrigation Technologies


Irrigation System Components

Irrigation delivery systems

Water purification systems

Moisture level sensors

Pumps and motors

VFDs

Pump System Maintenance Pump efficiency testing



In addition to identifying measures of interest, Navigant addressed the following research questions to

better understand system design practices and decision-making methods. These research questions

include the following listed in Table 4.

Table 4. Irrigation Research Questions

Research Question

What do current irrigation systems look like in terms of design, maintenance, and usage practices?

- What operating pressures do growers typically use?

- What are the current irrigation scheduling practices?

How are growers designing and using their current irrigation systems?

- How does this vary by crop type (e.g. tree vs. field crops)

- How does this vary by irrigation system?

- What do equipment replacement practices look like, and how does this vary by ROB vs. Early

Replacement?

How do these design and usage practices differ between large and small operations?

- What is the best way to define ‘large’ vs. ‘small’ operations for program planning purposes?

What actions are growers taking to reduce water usage?

- To what extent do growers rely on water distribution systems/practices to reduce water usage?

- To what extent are growers water-stressing their crops to reduce water usage?

- To what extent would growers be conserving water if they were not in drought conditions?

Source: Agriculture MASI Scope of Work Methodology

The Navigant team consulted a number of sources for this study, ranging from secondary research to in-

person interviews. The following subsections describe the Navigant team’s methodology for this MASI

study.

1.1.2 Literature Review

The MASI team built upon the existing research that Navigant conducted through an extensive industry

analysis for the 2010-2012 Agriculture Market Characterization. The team began by reviewing the 2010-2012

Market Characterization and Navigant’s 2013 Potentials, Goals, and Targets Study results. This

information included the final reports, program data, previous literature review, interview transcripts

with IOU program staff, and interview transcripts with subject matter experts (SMEs) as well as market

actors. The MASI team also conducted a high-level search for literature published since the previous

studies took place, and searched for other agricultural documents that had not been included in the

previous studies.1 Navigant has incorporated findings from this review of existing literature into the

findings of this study.

1 The full Literature Review from the 2010-2012 Market Characterization can be found here:

http://www.calmac.org/publications/Ag_Study__Literature_Review_Final.pdf


In addition to reviewing existing literature, the MASI team also conducted a high-level analysis of the

2010 California Irrigation Methods Survey Results by Crop Category, the 2012 United States Department

of Agriculture (USDA) Census of Agriculture, and the 2014 USDA Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey.

This analysis offered further insights into the status and direction of the agricultural market, and an

understanding of the common irrigation equipment types in the irrigated agriculture market. Findings

from these analyses are also included in the findings analysis where relevant.

1.1.3 In-Depth Interviews

To build on Navigant’s secondary research, the MASI team conducted in-depth interviews with a

number of market actors. The team began by interviewing seven IOU agricultural program managers

and key account managers to understand the IOUs’ current agricultural offerings, views on the state of

the agricultural industry, and common participation practices for IOU agriculture programs. The

Navigant team referenced the findings from these interviews when drafting the subsequent interview

guides for SMEs and growers. Additionally, the team used suggestions from program managers when

identifying SMEs and growers to interview.

The MASI team also interviewed five SMEs in each market segment. For the purposes of this study,

SMEs included individuals such as three researchers from local universities and the UC Extension

Service, one utility agricultural account manager, two members of trade associations, and four

contractors/designers who work closely with growers to design energy-using systems and select

equipment. These ten interviews provided an overview of equipment installation practices in both the

greenhouse and irrigated agriculture market segments. As shown in Table 5, the MASI team met its

target number of completed interviews for the greenhouse study. However, for the irrigated agriculture

study, one market actor needed to cut an interview short due to time restraints. Therefore, the MASI

team fell slightly short of its target number of completed interviews for the irrigated agriculture portion

of its study.

Table 5. Completed SME Interviews by Market Segment

Segment Target Completes Completed

Interviews

Greenhouses 5 5

Irrigated Agriculture 5 4.5

Source: Navigant analysis

In addition to program manager and SME interviews, the Navigant team spoke directly with 28 growers

across both market segments. Initially, the team intended to use IOU customer contact data to identify

growers to participate in these interviews. However, Navigant only received data from one IOU

throughout the course of the study. This data did not include contact names, which made it difficult for

the Navigant team to identify the correct contact within the organization.


Ultimately, the team was able to complete 18 of the target 18 interviews for the irrigated agriculture

segment, but only 11 of the target 18 interviews with greenhouse growers. Error! Reference source not

ound. shows the final disposition report for the grower interview calls.

Table 6. Disposition Report for Grower Calls

Disposition Category Irrigated Ag Greenhouses

Number of Completes 18 11

Number of Refusals 23 3

Number of Bad Numbers 28 3

Number of Attempted

Calls/Emails 261 53


Due to the lack of grower contact data, the lack of responses to cold calls from growers, and the need to

delay phone calls given the lack of contact information, Navigant explored various alternatives to

recruiting agricultural customers. In particular, the Navigant team asked trade associations, SMEs,

program managers, and other growers to suggest growers who would be willing to participate in the

interviews. This ‘snowball sample’ method proved to be the most successful means of reaching growers.

Navigant also asked a number of trade associations to help recruit growers for the interviews. These

associations could only offer paid advertising in their newsletters, and typically would not offer

suggested contacts as it would be a breach of their customers’ privacy. Per request of the IOU account

managers, a member of the Navigant team also traveled to California to meet in person with four

irrigated agriculture growers. Although Navigant was able to speak to growers of various sizes and crop

types, the “snowball sample” method of recruiting led to a concentration of growers in certain

geographic areas. This was particularly true for greenhouses, for which Navigant was only able to reach

coastal growers. Utilities should focus future research efforts on inland greenhouses, in particular, to

better understand this market segment. Table 7 and Table 8 show the geographic location of greenhouse

and irrigated agriculture grower respondents, respectively.

Table 7. Geographic Location of Greenhouse Grower Respondents

Geographic Location Number of Respondents

Northern Coastal 5

Southern Coastal 5

Multiple Sites* 1

*Note: This greenhouse operation was one of the largest in California and has

sites in northern coastal, southern coastal, and southern inland areas.

Source: Navigant grower interviews


Table 8. Geographic Location of Irrigated Agriculture Grower Respondents

Geographic Location Number of Respondents

Northern California 4

Southern California 3

Central Valley 4

Central Coast 7


To better understand differences between large and small operations, Navigant interviewed growers of

various-sized operations. Navigant retroactively categorized growers respective to other respondents,

based on square footage for greenhouses and acreage for irrigated agriculture growers. One of the

irrigated agriculture farms may have been a hobby farm, or a residence with a small orchard on the same

property. However, as this customer was included in IOU agricultural customer data, Navigant included

this respondent in the sample. Table 9 shows the number of completed interviews in each size category,

and the range of sizes within each size category.

Table 9. Number of Respondents per Size Category

Size Category Greenhouses Irrigated

Agriculture

Small

(Greenhouses: <500,000 sq. ft.)

(Irrigated Ag: <200 acres)

4 8

Medium

(Greenhouses: 50,000-1,000,000

sq. ft.)

(Irrigated Ag: 200-2,000 acres)

4 5

Large

(Greenhouses: >1,000,000 sq. ft.)

(Irrigated Ag: >2,000 acres)

3 5


The interview guides for all interviews are included in Appendix B through Appendix D.


2 Market and Industry Analysis

2.1 Industry Characterization

The agriculture sector is difficult to define by a single metric. For research and program purposes,

organizations typically categorize agricultural operations by NAICS code,2 which delineates segments by

crop type. In practice, however, this distinction is often less clear. For example, some operations grow

multiple crops, which may fall under different NAICS codes. Certain operations grow a portion of their

crops under greenhouse cover, while simultaneously growing outdoor field or orchard crops. Dairy

operations across California often grow alfalfa on the same plot of land in order to feed their cattle.

Growers may sometimes live on the same property as their farm, and their residential and commercial

energy use can be on the same meter. These nuances make it more difficult to succinctly categorize

agricultural operations than it would be to categorize industrial facilities or commercial operations.

Therefore, while this study focuses on greenhouses and nursery operations and irrigated agriculture

operations, utilities should note that these operations are complex and may include energy end uses

beyond standard agricultural operations.

To better understand the agricultural market, scholars and organizations often characterize the size of

agricultural operations by their area in square footage or acreage. Utilities, however, approach their

agricultural customers based on energy consumption, categorizing energy-intensive operations as ‘large’

accounts and low-consumption customers as ‘small’ accounts. While area and energy consumption can

help utilities to focus their energy-efficiency efforts, findings from this study show that the most

meaningful ways to categorize farms and greenhouses are by crop type(s) and water source(s). These

two factors are the primary determinants of an operation’s overall area, the type of systems and

equipment that a grower installs, and the amount of water and energy that the operation uses. For

example, one irrigation system designer explained that a farmer who grows strawberries would have a

much smaller plot of land than one who grows alfalfa, but strawberries have higher input costs per acre

than alfalfa in terms of energy, water, labor, and other factors. Furthermore, the market value of the crop

will play a large role in the amount of money a farmer will spend upfront to prepare for a harvest.

Because the inputs required to grow these two crop types differ greatly, it is problematic to compare

farms growing different commodities on the same scale.

Discussions with growers supported this finding. The Navigant team asked growers whether they

would categorize themselves as small, medium, or large operations. For the purposes of this study,

Navigant categorized growers by their size relative to each other and to other operations in utility data.

However, when growers self-reported the size their operations, they often did so by comparing

themselves to other operations that grew the same crop. For example, one medium-sized greenhouse

grower identified his operation as “the largest [rose grower]; most everyone else is out of business.”

Another grower said that their operation was large for organic herbs, but small- to medium-sized on the

2 The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in

classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to

the U.S. business economy.


Central Coast. Therefore, the most common method growers use to self-identify is not by comparison

with other producers in the overall market, but rather with other operators in the same crop category.

The geographic location of a farm or greenhouse and its source of water can also play a significant role in

a grower’s energy consumption. For instance, the differences in weather between coastal and inland

operations, and the differences in climate between northern and southern California can have significant

impacts on heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) uses in greenhouses or irrigation on

farmland. Geography also determines an operation’s water source, which plays a key role in growers’

irrigation pumping. The Navigant 2010-2012 Market Characterization found that irrigation pumping is

the most energy-intensive process for irrigated agriculture. With decreasing water availability, growers

must drill deeper or additional wells to account for declining water tables.3 Pumping water is less of a

concern for those who have a municipal source or easy access to groundwater or river water. Therefore,

the source of water for a farm or greenhouse should be a consideration for utilities looking to minimize

on-farm energy use.

2.1.1 Greenhouses

As previously mentioned, agricultural operations are typically categorized by NAICS code.

Greenhouses, nurseries, and floriculture fall under the NAICS code 1114. This industry group refers

primarily to operations growing nursery stock and flowers, or crops grown under covers such as

greenhouses, cold frames, cloth houses, or lath houses.4 Nursery stock includes short-rotation woody

crops with growth cycles of ten years or fewer. Covered crops can be removed from their coverings at

any point in their maturity, and typically have perennial life cycles. As shown in Table 10, most of the

growers that Navigant interviewed for this MASI study were in the floriculture industry.

Table 10. Greenhouse Respondent Crop Types

Self-Reported Size Number of

Respondents*

Cut

Flowers

Indoor

Plants

Outdoor

Plants Herbs

Small 4 - 1 0 -

Medium 4 2 4 1 1

Large 3 3 1 1 -

Total 11 5 5 2 1

*Multiple responses allowed Source: Navigant grower interviews

3 NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 2009. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2009-194. 4 North American Industry Classification System, 2007. http://naics-code-lookup.findthedata.org/l/124/Greenhouse-

Nursery-and-Floriculture-Production.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2009-194

http://naics-code-lookup.findthedata.org/l/124/Greenhouse-Nursery-and-Floriculture-Production

http://naics-code-lookup.findthedata.org/l/124/Greenhouse-Nursery-and-Floriculture-Production


The greenhouse and nursery segment is an important component in California’s agricultural market, and

is the largest natural gas consumer within the state’s agricultural market (see Figure 1). California leads

the nation in sales of greenhouse and nursery products, and is a dominant producer of cut flowers and

greens (59 percent of national sales), greenhouse grown fruits and berries (66 percent of national sales),

and nursery transplants (60 percent of national sales). The greenhouses and nurseries segment plays a

prominent role in California’s production of food crops, landscaping plants, flowers, plugs, garden and

household plants, and vegetable transplants. Sales of nursery, greenhouse, and floriculture products

accounted for 7.4 percent of California’s total agricultural revenue in 2012.5

Figure 1. Proportion of Natural Gas Sales by Segment

Source: Navigant 2010-2012 Agriculture Market Characterization

Overall, the number of California greenhouse producers is small compared with the total value of

production of floriculture and nursery products, ranging from a high of $2.4 million average sales per

producer in 2010 to a low of $2.0 million in 2006.6 Most of the greenhouse industry is concentrated

among a small number of very large greenhouse operations. According to Navigant’s findings from the

2010-2012 Market Characterization, the greenhouses and nurseries market segment consists of a handful

of companies that can be broken into three tiers based on the acreage of production. As of the Market

Characterization, two companies, Monrovia and Hines Horticulture, represented approximately one-

third of the greenhouses and nurseries market segment.7 This may have shifted since the Market

5 Navigant Consulting, Inc. (2013). Market Characterization Report for 2010-2012 Statewide Agricultural Energy Efficiency

Potential and Market Characterization Study. Boulder, CO. Retrieved from

http://www.calmac.org/publications/CA_Ag_Mrkt_Characterization_Final_5-13-13.pdf. 6 USDA, Floriculture and Nursery Crops Yearbook. FLO-2007, Economic Research Service, September 2007.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/Flo/2007/09Sep/FLO2007.pdf. 7 This information came from SME interviews in Navigant’s 2010-2012 Agriculture Market Characterization.

http://www.calmac.org/publications/CA_Ag_Mrkt_Characterization_Final_5-13-13.pdf

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/Flo/2007/09Sep/FLO2007.pdf


Characterization, as a 2014 list of top greenhouse growers lists California’s Color Spot Nurseries and

Altman Plants as the top two greenhouse growers in the US.8 Interviews from the 2010-2012 Market

Characterization also indicated that the following five companies list constituted approximately 15

percent of the overall market share. , and the final tier was composed of approximately ten companies

that constitute about half of the overall market share. However, interviews for this MASI suggest that

there may be many more greenhouse operations than previously indicated, particularly when including

hobby farms. The USDA Census of Agriculture states that there are over 1,000 greenhouses in California

devoted to floriculture, alone. This likely indicates that there are numerous individual greenhouse sites,

although large greenhouse growers may operate many of these sites. One SME for this MASI indicated

that there may be hundreds of greenhouses across California, and it is likely that the market is

significantly larger than indicated in the Market Characterization. A comprehensive, industry-wide

baseline study would allow for a better understanding of the number and types of growers within the

California greenhouse market.

The values of these market shares and the number of operations in California may have shifted since the

Market Characterization. According to SME interviews for this MASI, the majority of greenhouse

production is still concentrated among very few growers. Both Navigant’s 2010-2012 Market

Characterization and the 2014 USDA Census of Agriculture (Table 11) indicate that both the greenhouse

and nursery segments saw a contraction in acreage from 2002 to 2007. One SME explained that this

contraction of the market was a result of an economic recession at the time, during which many

greenhouses went out of business. Since then, the market segment has rebounded in terms of acreage,

although it has not yet reached 2002 levels. Two SMEs stated that they expect the industry to continue to

grow as money becomes easier to borrow, technology advances, and demand for organic produce

increases.

Table 11. USDA Census Data for California Greenhouses and Nurseries

Year Greenhouse (Acres) Nursery (Acres) Crop Value ($ per

Acre)

2002 4,701 82,506 N/A

2007 3,478 74,688 $46,808.44

2012 4,529 76,295 $31,941.16

Source: USDA 2014 Census of Agriculture

8 Gallagher, A., Drotleff, L. and Wright, J., 2014, “2014 Top 100 List Shows Growers Are Expanding.” Greenhouse

Grower. Accessed from http://www.greenhousegrower.com/business-management/top-100/2014-top-100-list-shows-

growers-are-expanding/


2.1.2 Irrigated Agriculture

For the purposes of this MASI study, irrigated agriculture refers to agricultural operations requiring

irrigation that are located outside of a covered area (e.g., greenhouse). These include commercial

growing operations producing field crops; row crops; fruit, tree nut, and vine crops; and vineyards and

wineries. When separated by NAICS code, these market segments fall under the 111 NAICS category,

which includes “crops [grown] mainly for food and fiber.9” This NAICS code also includes greenhouses

and nurseries; however, as Navigant explored greenhouses and nurseries separately, the team is

excluding this subsegment from the irrigated agriculture portion of the report. The farmers whom

Navigant interviewed typically grew more than one crop. Table 12 includes the list of crops that

respondents reportedly grew.

Table 12. Irrigated Agriculture Respondent Crop Types

Farm

Size

Number of

Respondent

s*

Tree

Nuts**

Vegetable

s

Vine

Crops

Rice,

Grains, or

Corn

Citrus Other

Small 8 3 - - 1 3 2

Medium 5 3 - 1 1 1 3

Large 5 4 4 2 3 - 1

*Multiple sources allowed

**Also includes olives Source: Navigant grower interviews

9 North American Industry Classification System, 2007. http://www.census.gov/econ/industry/def/d111.htm.

http://www.census.gov/econ/industry/def/d111.htm


The irrigated agriculture segment is the largest consumer electricity within California’s agriculture

market, as shown in Figure 2. California farms irrigate just less than 8 million acres of arable land,10

using primarily electric power to extract, move, and pressurize water for crops. In 2012, California’s

80,500 farms and ranches generated a record $44.7 billion in revenue.11 Although these operations

occupied over 25 million acres, growers only irrigate 30 percent the land area. Less than 6 percent of

California’s farms and ranches controlled 60 percent of these irrigated acres,12 82 percent of which they

cultivated for orchards, forage crops, vegetables, grapes, and rice, as shown in Table 13.

Figure 2. Proportion of Electricity Sales by Segment

Source: Navigant 2010-2012 Agriculture Market Characterization

10 National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 2014, 2012 Census of Agriculture: United States. U.S. Department of

Agriculture. Report No. AC-12-A-551.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/California_Ag_Statistics/Reports/2012cas-

all.pdf. 11 California Agricultural Statistics, 2012 Crop Year, USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.


all.pdf. 12 NASS, 2014.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/California_Ag_Statistics/Reports/2012cas-all.pdf





The fruit, tree nut, and vine segment is also a key area of California agriculture. According to the 2010-

2012 Market Characterization, California produces more fruit, tree nut, and vine crops than any other

state.13 In 2010, fruit, tree nut, and vine crops accounted for 16.3 percent of California IOUs’ agricultural

energy sales, with electric water pumping as the main energy end use. California’s vineyard and winery

market segment is similarly robust: as of 2010, California produced 90 percent of American wine and

held the fourth spot in global wine production. With regard to energy use, vineyard and winery Crops

consumed 12.9 percent of 2010 agricultural energy sales, with gas sales larger than electricity sales in

terms of total MMBTU. Table 13 shows California’s major irrigated acreage by type of crop.

Table 13. USDA Census Data for California Irrigated Acreage by Crop, 2012

Type of Crop Irrigated Acreage

2002 2007 2012

Orchards 2,828,788 2,728,176 3,072,245

Forage

(includes hay and haylage, grass silage, and

greenchop)

1,676,935 1,554,197 1,346,666

Vegetables 1,025,056 968,965 985,731

Rice 531,314 531,075 561,968

Corn

(for silage or greenchop) 391,300 460,514 461,898

Total 6,453,393 6,242,927 6,428,508

Source: 2012 Census of Agriculture

As previously discussed, the term ‘irrigated agriculture’ refers to multiple agricultural subsegments, and

the category therefore is incredibly diverse in terms of crop type, geographic location, size, and

seasonality. Because of this, it is difficult to draw comparisons between, for instance, field crops and

vineyards, as the growing season, crop rotation, irrigation methods, geographic concentration, and

operation size vary immensely. Given this variability, the findings presented in this study draw on

trends and practices highlighted by the experts and growers who were available for interviews. Where

appropriate, the Navigant team has emphasized responses that are unique to a particular market

segment, rather than applicable to irrigated agriculture as a whole.

2.2 Initiatives to Date

The California IOUs offer a number of incentives for agricultural purposes. Until recently, these included

non-residential equipment rebates such as boilers, lighting, and HVAC measures, as well as agriculture-

specific rebates such as sprinkler-to-drip irrigation conversions and greenhouse shell measures.

California utilities are in the process of altering their incentives list based on changing Industry Standard

13 Navigant Consulting, Inc., Market Characterization Report for 2010-2012 Statewide Agricultural Energy Efficiency

Potential and Market Characterization Study, 2013.


Practices (ISP). In particular, The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) has recently removed

incentives for microsprinklers for tree crops and vineyards due to ISP concerns, although the incentive

for this measure is still available for field crops. Utilities have also added measures to their incentive list,

such as an agriculture-specific deemed incentive for pump motor VFDs.

2.2.1 Federal Initiatives

In 2014, the U.S. Congress passed the Agricultural Act of 2014, also known as the Farm Bill. This

legislation authorized agricultural subsidy programs across the country through 2018 and allocated $956

billion to food stamps, crop insurance, conservation, and commodity programs, among other end uses.14

With funding from the 2014 Farm Bill, the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

offers the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The EQIP program is available to all

producers, regardless of operation size or type of crop produced, in all 50 states, the District of

Columbia, and the Caribbean and Pacific Island territories. General eligibility criteria requires

participants to receive an on-farm energy audit from a list of certified Technical Service Providers (TSP),

and to secure documentation of a full 12 month’s history of the farm’s energy use. The program allows

eligible participants to receive financial and technical assistance to implement conservation practices. In

essence, this program allocates funds for farmers to receive assistance in land and energy conservation,

including providing incentives for on-farm energy audits (Energy Management Plans). The program also

offers rebates of up to 75 percent of the equipment cost to install any energy-efficient measure with a

simple payback of 10 years or less, or measures itemized on the states list of eligible technologies.

Eligible measures for the state of California include lighting, dairy plate coolers, ventilation and fan

upgrades, irrigation pumps, grain dryers, greenhouse improvements, heating and refrigeration units,

insulation and building envelope sealing, and motor controls and variable speed drives.

Additionally, the Farm Bill funds the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), offered by USDA

Rural Development. This grant program provides financial assistance for farmers and rural small

businesses to purchase renewable energy systems and make energy-efficiency improvements to reduce

energy consumption. It also allows farmers to participate in technical assessments, energy audits, and

feasibility studies. The NRCS also offers several smaller agricultural programs such as the Conservation

Stewardship Program, Conservation Innovation Grants, and Conservation Activity Plans. These

programs provide incentives for on-farm energy audits and other conservation practices.

With regard to accessing these initiatives, farmers typically have a contract with their local USDA NRCS

office through the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), where farmers are eligible to receive

payments through land management and conservation efforts. Through this contract, NRCS sometimes

funnels farmers to the EQIP program. However, Navigant was unable to find quantitative data on the

number of farmers who apply for and proceed with Agricultural Energy Management Plans through

EQIP. Navigant could not identify a federal tracking system or evaluation that tracks the impact of the

EQIP or REAP programs.

14 The Hill, House passes $956B farm bill. http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/196819-house-passes-956b-

farm-bill.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/196819-house-passes-956b-farm-bill

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/196819-house-passes-956b-farm-bill


2.2.2 California Initiatives

Most of the state initiatives that apply to agricultural producers are general initiatives applicable to all

non-residential entities. The exception is an agriculture-specific, partial sales-and-use tax exemption for

facilities that use solar photovoltaic (PV) systems for their farm equipment or machinery.15 The

California State Board of Equalization runs this initiative, and it is only applicable to taxes levied by the

state, and not by local governments.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) also provides competitive grant funding

through the State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program (SWEEP) for financial assistance to

agricultural operations to implement water and energy conservation measures. The program’s mission is

to increase water efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The program is funded through

emergency drought legislation as an intention to target agricultural irrigation systems and to incentivize

the investment in water irrigation treatment and distribution systems that reduce water and energy use.

Other statewide initiatives that could apply to agricultural producers typically relate to small-scale

renewable energy generation, particularly solar. These initiatives include the California Solar Initiative,

which offers rebates for solar PV installations; the Renewable Market Adjusting Tariff (ReMAT), which

“allows eligible customer-generators to…sell the electricity produced by small renewable energy

systems (up to 3 megawatts);”16 the CPUC’s Renewable Feed-In Tariff (FIT) program, which offers FITs

to small-scale generation projects; and the CPUC’s Self-Generation Incentive Program, which “provides

incentives to support existing, new, and emerging distributed energy resources.”17 Although these

programs could apply to agricultural customers in theory, Navigant was not able to identify agricultural

customers who had participated in these programs. These programs could provide an opportunity that

agricultural customers could leverage for future projects.

2.3 Codes and Standards

A number of international and federal standards apply to equipment used in agricultural operations. In

particular, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) sets standards on design, operation,

and test method requirements for irrigation equipment.18 Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Energy

sets standards for commercial equipment used in greenhouse applications, such as commercial water

heaters, refrigerators, boilers, motors, fans, and pumps, among others.19 Enforcement of these standards

typically takes place at the manufacturer level, so any equipment that a grower installs presumably will

meet the minimum standard.

Building codes typically do not apply to the growing portion of an irrigated agriculture operation, as

these operations do not grow their crops under permanent cover. Similarly, greenhouses are not

15 Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE).

http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA257F&re=0&ee=0. 16 DSIRE. http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA167F&re=0&ee=0. 17 CPUC Self-Generation Incentive Program. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/DistGen/sgip/. 18 International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage. http://www.icid.org/res_irri_.isie.html. 19 US Department of Energy. http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/standards-and-test-procedures.

http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA257F&re=0&ee=0

http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=CA167F&re=0&ee=0

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/DistGen/sgip/

http://www.icid.org/res_irri_.isie.html

http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/standards-and-test-procedures


permanent structures, and therefore building codes do not apply to the growing portions of these

operations either. Building codes could apply to on-site, post-harvest facilities; however, because post-

harvest practices are outside of the scope of this study, building codes do not apply here.

2.4 Common Equipment Practices

The agricultural market is continuously shifting due to technological advancements, decreasing water

availability, and the succession of younger generations in farm ownership. Because of this, utilities and

regulators are increasingly concerned with understanding what equipment growers are currently

installing and how they are using this equipment. This report, and in particular this section, will provide

a high-level, qualitative review of common equipment installation and usage practices on farms and in

greenhouses. While this study does not determine specific, quantitative baselines for individual

measures, it offers insight into on-farm equipment practices, which can help to direct utilities’ future

programming efforts.

2.4.1 Greenhouses and Nurseries

According to the 2010-2012 Market Characterization, in 2010, greenhouses and nurseries represented

approximately 8.3 percent of total energy sales within the agriculture sector. Within the greenhouses and

nurseries market segment, gas sales tend to be larger than electricity sales, and the Southern California

Gas Company is the largest gas supplier. Typically, greenhouses will use more energy than nurseries

due to greenhouses’ space-conditioning and refrigeration requirements, which often do not apply to

outdoor nurseries. The Market Characterization study identified key energy end uses as lighting, space-

conditioning (cooling, heating, and humidification), sorting, packing, cold storage, and irrigation-related

(pumping, sprinklers). MASI grower interviews supported these findings, as growers cited process-

related lighting, irrigation pumping, refrigeration, and space heating as their key energy end uses. The

following subsections describe these end uses and their associated equipment in further detail.

2.4.1.1 Greenhouse Building Shell

The shell of a greenhouse is a significant determinant of a greenhouse’s overall energy use, as the quality

of the shell and the presence of additional insulation measures can greatly affect the greenhouse’s space

heating and cooling needs. Shell materials range from polyethylene plastic, which is the least efficient

material and has a measure life of 3-5 years, to acrylic, which is the highest energy-efficient material and

has a measure life of over 20 years. Most shell materials are available in multiple layers, with additional

layers indicating higher efficiency. When selecting a building shell material type, growers must consider

the cost of the material, the efficiency, and the needs of the crop, among other factors. For example, the

sensitivity of the plant to light may factor into the installation decisions for high-end crops, such as

orchids. Geographic location will also factor into a grower’s decision regarding greenhouse shell

materials. One greenhouse builder stated that polyethylene plastic is more common in the Central

Valley, as wind is less of an issue in this area than at coastal greenhouses. Coastal greenhouses, on the

other hand, tend to install harder coverings such as polycarbonate because wind can blow plastic

coverings off relatively easily. It is important to note that most of the greenhouse growers whom

Navigant interviewed for this MASI were located on the coast. Therefore, utilities should keep in mind

that inland greenhouses may have different equipment installations and practices than those described

in this study.


Existing Greenhouses

Navigant asked greenhouse growers about their building shell on both existing and new construction

(<5 years old) greenhouses. All of the growers had existing greenhouse areas over five years old, with

the exception of one medium-sized orchid grower. When asked what shell materials they used on their

existing greenhouses, four growers stated they had single-layer polyethylene film, five had double-layer

polyethylene film, and one had four-layer polyethylene film. One medium-sized grower also claimed to

have single-layer polycarbonate sheets and glass houses in some of the greenhouses. This grower stated

that the operation sometimes replaces the glass panels with double-layer polyethylene, which is more

efficient than glass in terms of heat loss.

Navigant also asked growers whether they had added additional insulation or upgraded their building

shell in the last five years, and whether they had received an incentive for this installation. Six growers

claimed that they had upgraded or installed some form of additional insulation on existing greenhouses.

These respondents had installed double-layer polyethylene, added a second layer to existing

polyethylene-covered greenhouses, or in one instance, added infrared (IR) film and heat curtains to their

existing double-layer polyethylene. Four of these growers claimed that they received a rebate, although

only one of these rebates was for a building shell upgrade to double-layer polyethylene film. When

asked whether his organization would have installed the double-layer polyethylene in the absence of a

rebate, the individual stated that they would have but not at the time that they installed it.

The split between single- and double-layer polyethylene film in existing greenhouses suggests that the

segment may be moving toward a slightly higher-efficiency building shell. However, some growers

indicated that they still used single-layer polyethylene on some greenhouses, and that the process for

upgrading is slow due to the cost of the material. One grower stated that his operation had been working

on changing their roofs over eight years; currently, they are halfway through the process but cannot

replace their materials faster because they are too expensive. This was consistent with findings from the

SME interviews.

Similarly, one greenhouse builder explained that it is difficult to convince growers to install higher-

efficiency materials because growers are unsure of the payback. This builder stated that most of his

customers would not install higher-efficiency materials if a rebate were unavailable, and that even

though his customers are often impressed with the savings, they would still revert back to single-layer

polyethylene if there were no rebate available the next time. According to this builder, greenhouse

growers are so cost-conscious that they will occasionally buy used materials from a neighboring

greenhouse if the other greenhouse is retrofitting their buildings. One large grower confirmed this,

stating that if there is no rebate available for upgrading his greenhouse material, he will “scavenge”

walls from another area in his greenhouse that require less heat. Navigant’s interviews revealed that five

greenhouse growers used double-layer polyethylene, which suggests that there may be some

greenhouse growers who are moving toward slightly higher-efficiency shell materials without the aid of

incentives. However, the cost of materials may inhibit other growers from installing higher-efficiency

insulation. Navigant therefore recommends that utilities continue to offer incentives for higher-efficiency

shell insulation retrofits.


New Construction Greenhouses

Six of the eleven greenhouse growers interviewed had installed new greenhouse space in the last five

years. These included all three of the large growers, one medium-sized grower, and two small growers.

When asked the type of shell insulation that they installed on new greenhouse space, only one, large

grower claimed to have installed single-layer polyethylene on his greenhouse. The remaining growers

installed either polyethylene or polycarbonate, and responses varied as to whether they had single or

double layers. This suggests that double-layer polyethylene film may be common practice among coastal

greenhouse growers in California.


Table 14 shows the shell material on both new construction and existing greenhouses, as well as the

number of layers.


Table 14. Building Shell Materials on Respondents' Greenhouses

Greenhouse Size

Existing/

New

Construction

Existing

Shell Material

New Construction

Shell Material

Greenhouse

#1 Small

New

Construction Not Applicable

Single-layer

polycarbonate

Greenhouse

#2 Small Both

Single-layer

polyethylene

Double-layer

polyethylene

Greenhouse

#3 Small

New

Construction Not Applicable

4-layer polyethylene, 2-

layer inflatable

polyethylene on roof

Greenhouse

#4 Small Existing

Double-layer

polyethylene Not Applicable

Greenhouse

#5 Medium Existing

Single-layer

polyethylene, double-

layer polyethylene,

single-layer

polycarbonate

Not Applicable

Greenhouse

#6 Medium Existing

Double-layer


Greenhouse

#7 Medium Existing

Double-layer


Greenhouse

#8 Medium Both

Double-layer

polyethylene

Double-layer

polyethylene

Greenhouse

#9 Large Both

Single-layer

polycarbonate, double-

layer polycarbonate

Double-layer

polycarbonate

Greenhouse

#10 Large Both

Double-layer

polyethylene

Double-layer

polyethylene

Greenhouse

#11 Large Both

Single-layer

polyethylene

Single-layer

polyethylene

Note: Not Applicable indicates that growers did not have existing greenhouses (5+ years old) or new construction

greenhouses (<5 years old), respectively.


All of the greenhouses that had installed double-layer, new construction materials - whether

polycarbonate or polyethylene - indicated that they received incentives for their installations. When

asked whether they would have installed the same type and amount of material had a rebate not been

available, the small and medium-sized growers with polyethylene film stated that they would have


installed the same material. The large growers who installed polycarbonate and double-layered

polyethylene material, however, claimed they would have had to put it off and potentially purchased it

later. Both of these growers said that the rebate was very important – 7 and 8 out of 10, respectively – in

their decision to install their new materials.

These responses and the growers’ responses for existing building shell upgrades suggest that building

shell costs may actually be more restraining for large growers than for small or medium-sized growers.

Some smaller growers tended to have higher-efficiency materials than the large growers, and were

reportedly less dependent on incentives than small or medium-sized growers were. This may not be

representative of the market as a whole. However, the dependence of the large growers on incentives,

and the slow, iterative approach that growers are taking to upgrade their building shells, suggests that

there are still energy saving opportunities in the greenhouse market.

Other Shell Measures

Added insulation measures were relatively common among the greenhouse growers whom Navigant

interviewed. These measures included IR film, heat curtains, and shade cloths. Over half of the growers

stated that they did have at least one of these measures, and most of these respondents had a

combination of these measures, as shown in Table 15.

Table 15. Building Shell Materials on Respondents' Greenhouses

Size Number of Respondents IR Film Heat Curtains Shade Cloths

Small 4 3 3 3

Medium 4 3 3 3

Large 3 1 1 2


Findings from the SME interviews indicated that these measures might be less common across the

industry as a whole. One utility staff member estimated that only a quarter of small greenhouses and

approximately 40 percent of large greenhouses have IR film, heat curtains, or shade cloths. One SME

stated that the use of these installations depended heavily on the geographic location of the greenhouse.

In particular, this SME stated that IR film is not common on the coast, but is much more common on

inland polyethylene greenhouses. Another SME, a greenhouse expert from the UC Cooperative

Extension, explained that commodity is another key driver in the use of these measures, more so than

the greenhouse’s size or sophistication. For example, this SME stated that some greenhouses in southern

California require shade cloths in the summer because the crop will burn in the sun. Similarly, some

crops thrive under infrared light or high levels of heat, while others need protection from these elements.

While some growers’ heat curtains and shade cloths were reportedly very old, others tended to replace

them every three to five years. The 2005 PG&E Greenhouse Baseline study found that neither shade

cloths nor thermal curtains were standard baseline practices. Navigant did not find any recent secondary

literature to suggest that these measures had become standard practice since the Baseline Study took


place. Grower interviews, however, did show that they were common among the respondents

interviewed, which could be a factor of the greenhouses’ locations (mostly coastal) and crop types.

Regarding IR film, grower interviews did show that most of the respondents had this measure in at least

some of their greenhouses. The 2005 Greenhouse Baseline Study indicated that IR film likely was the

baseline for roofs, but not for greenhouse walls. The study also stated that some growers were skeptical

about the energy savings from IR film. An SME whom Navigant interviewed for this MASI – a major

vendor for greenhouses across California – expressed similar concerns. This vendor claimed that the

utility incentive for this measure was particularly high relative to the potential savings and the measure

life. A statement from one of the growers supported this suggestion; this grower stated that he had been

using IR film since the 1980s or 1990s, yet when he reviewed the savings he achieved from it, he found

that if anything, he was using slightly more energy with IR film. Although the grower realized this lack

of savings ten years ago, he continues to install IR film every time he replaces his greenhouse shell.

When asked why he continues to install the measure, he stated that the incentive is high enough that it is

worth installing, as it diffuses light and does not burn his plants. The vendor SME who expressed this

concern stated that utilities could reduce the incentive for IR film by half, and growers would still install

the measure. Comparatively, the builder emphasized that polycarbonate panels achieve higher savings

and last longer than polyethylene plastic with IR film. Therefore, he recommended that utilities

prioritize incentives for higher-efficiency shell material over incentives for IR film.

Another SME suggested that the use of these measures will depend primarily on the needs of the crops,

themselves. The SME, a greenhouse expert from the UC Cooperative Extension, stated that the effects of

IR film on plant growth is an area in need of further research. This SME predicted that once the industry

had a better understanding of the effects of IR light on specific crops, the installation of this measure

would become commodity-driven.

Building Shell Recommendations

Grower and SME interviews showed that there are still a number of greenhouse growers using single-

layer polyethylene film for both existing greenhouses and new construction. According to explanations

from both growers and SMEs, it is possible that in the absence of rebates, growers would revert to

installing single-layer polyethylene film, particularly as a replacement measure. However, utilities

should consider adjusting incentives for higher-efficiency materials so that they are more attractive as

compared to double-layer polyethylene. Polycarbonate is more efficient than polyethylene and has a

longer measure life, which would mean that growers do not need to replace it as frequently.

One greenhouse builder also expressed safety concerns with the installation of polyethylene film. In

particular, this builder explained that due to cost concerns, greenhouse growers are increasingly

installing their own polyethylene film instead of paying contractors to install it. According to the builder,

there have been an increasing number of accidents related to growers installing their own building shell.

The builder explained that this could potentially cause insurance companies to refuse coverage of

installations not done by a contractor, which could in turn increase the labor costs associated with

polyethylene film. If this were to occur, growers likely would be more limited by financial concerns


associated with building shell measures, and may therefore rely even more heavily on incentives to

pursue energy-efficiency opportunities.

Regarding added shell measures, SMEs suggested that the applicability of these measures to

greenhouses depends on the geographic location of the greenhouse and the temperature and light

requirements of specific crops. Most of the growers whom Navigant interviewed had at least one of

these measures in place. However, growers may have installed the measures to improve the yield and

quality of their crops and to mitigate environmental factors associated with coastal weather conditions.

2.4.1.2 Pumps and Motors

According to grower interviews, greenhouse operations primarily used motors for irrigation pumping,

air movement, refrigeration, and, in some operations, conveyors. All growers stated that their motors

were AC, and the age and size of these motors varied greatly for each grower. Virtually all respondents

stated that they had numerous small motors, ranging from 0.25 to 3 hp, for air movement, evaporative

cooling, booster pumps, and for operating automatic vents. In addition to small motors, growers also

had various mid-sized pumps, ranging from 5 to 15 hp, for on-site refrigeration, boiler pumps, and

irrigation pumping.

Only three respondents claimed to have motors larger than 20 hp. Two of these were large growers; one

had multiple 20-75 hp well pumps, while the other had multiple, 100 hp pumps for the same purpose.

The third grower was a technologically sophisticated, medium-sized orchid grower. This grower had

mostly 12 hp motors for conveyance and for operating ventilation panels, as well as a smaller number of

35 hp motors for cranes that they used to move plant beds.

When asked about their replacement practices, growers stated that they will repair the equipment for as

long as possible and will only replace equipment on failure. This was true for all the growers who had

undergone equipment replacements during their time with the company. The larger growers stated that

they might be inclined to replace equipment early if the repair would only be short term and the

equipment would break down shortly after. If the equipment is particularly old and unreliable, large

growers emphasized that the labor required for repairing a motor might not be worth the effort and

money. Furthermore, growers indicated that motor rewinds are becoming as expensive as repairing or

replacing motors when they stop working. This indicates that there may be opportunity in large

greenhouses to target early replacement of large motors.


Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs)

VFDs were in place in at least half of the respondents’ greenhouses. As shown in Table 16, VFDs were

more common in larger operations than in smaller greenhouses. Most of the VFD installations were

located on main pumps from wells and water sources to pressurize the irrigation systems. In one

operation, they had installed VFDs on water recycling pumps, and in another, on water tanks for cooling

pads. Growers reportedly installed VFDs both as retrofits and on new pumps, with no apparent trend

toward one or the other. Notably, only the large growers received an incentive for their VFDs at the time

of the interviews. Navigant did not ask respondents explicitly why they did not receive a rebate;

however, one respondent explained that the utility must approve the measure before he could install it,

and he may waste more energy in that time than the rebate was worth. While this may not represent the

mentality of all small growers, it illustrates that farmers’ top priority is to keep their operations running,

and that uncertainty around rebate amounts and processing time could negatively influence

participation in efficiency programs.

Table 16. VFD Installations in Greenhouses

Greenhouse

Size

Number of

Respondents Installed VFDs

Received

Incentive

Small 4 2 0

Medium 4 3 0*

Large 3 2 2

*One grower was in the process of applying for a rebate, but had not yet received it. Source: Navigant grower interviews

Greenhouse growers indicated that they valued VFDs for their efficiency savings and their application to

large motors. A quarter of the respondents worried that the quick start and stop of large pumps would

wear on their irrigation systems. They characterized VFDs as “gentler,” and they attributed lower, long-

term maintenance costs with VFD installations. Larger growers tended to emphasize cost savings

associated with VFDs, while smaller growers tended to emphasize efficiency. One large grower did not

give a specific reason for installing VFDs, but rather explained, “Based on our usage and irrigation

methodology, VFDs made the only sense.”

These interviews suggested that VFDs might be present on most farms, typically on larger well pumps.

However, growers typically did not install VFDs on all of their pumps and motors. One grower in

particular stated that if he had received rebates for VFDs, he would have installed more of them. This

indicates that while growers are willing to invest in VFDs for their larger motors, there still may be

energy saving opportunities in incentivizing motors for medium-sized applications.

2.4.1.3 Irrigation Systems Equipment

Navigant asked growers a series of questions about their irrigation systems. All but one respondent

reported that they had drip systems in place, and over half of these systems were more than 20 years old.

This suggests that greenhouse growers have been using low-flow, pressurized irrigation systems for a

number of years, and there likely are limited savings opportunities in conversion to low-flow systems.


Growers reported that their water came from either municipal supplies or wells. Six of the eleven

growers had water recycling systems, and eight growers had some form of filtering or purifying their

water. One grower indicated that he had no runoff, and therefore had no need for a water recycling or

purification system. Of those who did have a system in place, there was no apparent relationship

between the size of the greenhouse and the presence of these systems. Although most of the growers did

not know the capacity of their systems, the three who did know claimed that the systems ran between

15,000-50,000 gallons per day. Interestingly, nearly all of the small to medium-sized growers had their

systems in place for over 10 years, while the two large growers with water recycling systems had only

installed them within the last year. This suggests that these systems may be a growing trend but are not

yet in place in all greenhouses.

When asked what they used recycled water for, most growers cited irrigation purposes. One grower

claimed that the water was too saline to use for irrigation, so they would run the water through cooling

pads to cool the greenhouses. Another grower claimed that they used the recycled water to sanitize

harvest equipment. Overall, greenhouse growers appeared to be conscious of water conservation in their

operations, regardless of how they ultimately used this water.

2.4.1.1 Other Equipment

According to SME interviews, the equipment found within a greenhouse is largely dependent on its

geographic location and the type of crop grown in the greenhouse. The greenhouse grower interviews

supported this to an extent, as the type and age of equipment in the greenhouses varied from grower to

grower. However, given the relatively small number of interviews included in this study, there is not

enough representation to draw conclusions for individual crop types across the market.

Navigant did note some consistencies among growers’ equipment. For instance, as shown in Table 17,

most growers used a combination of boilers and floor or under-bench radiant heating to heat the

greenhouses. This finding was consistent with the 2005 Greenhouse Baseline Study, which indicated that

under-bench heating was the most common form of heating among those respondents. Respondents

from this MASI indicated that their boiler systems tended to be very old – some up to 80 years old. For

those growers who knew their system’s efficiency, they estimated that their boilers ranged between 50 to

80 percent efficient. The radiant heating systems were typically installed at the time of the boilers,

indicating that these systems are likely very old, as well. Because these systems are aging and may be

relatively inefficient, utilities may find savings opportunities in replacing these heating measures, either

as they fail or as early replacement measures. Two growers, in particular, stated that they were

interested in learning more about the efficiency of boilers compared to water heaters. This may be an

area in which utilities can pursue further energy efficiency.


Table 17. HVAC and Process Measures in Greenhouses

Greenhouse

Size

Number of

Respondents Boilers

Water

Heater Fans*

Unit

Heaters

Radiant

Heating

Small 4 4 0 2 1 4

Medium 4 4 1 4 2 3

Large 3 2 1 0 1 1

*Navigant asked respondents about condenser fans, but based on respondents’ descriptions, it is likely that

these fans were actually circulation fans rather than condenser fans.


Approximately half of respondents claimed to use condenser fans; however, growers’ descriptions of

these fans suggested that these were more likely circulation fans for air movement than condenser fans.

Overall, the use of fans varied with the geographic location of the greenhouse and varied in age.

Respondents indicated that they either had not replaced them since installation, or that they replaced

them as they burn out.

Four respondents also claimed to have unit heaters. Of these respondents, only two knew the last time

they had replaced these heaters, both of which were in the last year. The large grower with unit heaters

stated that he buys new heaters every year, which tended to be very efficient. However, this is most

likely not representative of the market overall. Given the limited HVAC information offered by

respondents, Navigant was not able to establish industry standard practices for these systems. However,

the information that growers did offer suggest that growers do not typically have standard replacement

protocols for HVAC equipment. Therefore, there may be further efficiency opportunities in the

replacement of fan systems and space heating.

Although the Navigant team did not ask about lighting measures, two growers expressed interest in

light-emitting diode (LED) lighting. One claimed that he had already installed approximately 50 LED

lights on a trial basis, and had done so without assistance of a rebate. The other grower stated that she

had approached her utility representative about installing LEDs, and was waiting to hear from them

regarding possible incentives. Utilities may already offer rebate for LEDs through their non-residential

program offerings; however, utilities may consider targeting the agricultural industry specifically with

LED incentives.


As found in the 2010-2012 Market Characterization, irrigated agriculture consumes the most electricity of

any agricultural market segment in the California IOU service territory, equaling 39 percent of the

market’s overall electricity consumption in 2010. The balance of the electrical use depends on the crop

grown, the hydrological conditions, climate, and the extent to which the business engages in post-

harvest activities. Similarly, embedded energy associated with groundwater resources varies by source

and location.


Gas sales to the irrigated agriculture sector constitute a much smaller portion of the market share,

representing approximately 15 percent of the IOUs’ total sales in 2010. Gas usage in this market segment

contributes primarily to gas-fired irrigation pumping, although secondary processes such as small-scale

dairy farming or greenhouse cultivation could also be contributing factors. When designing programs,

utilities should consider the heavy use of electricity in the market segment, as well as the supporting

practices that can take place on irrigated agriculture farms. The following subsections describe energy

end uses for irrigation agriculture and their associated equipment in further detail.

2.4.2.1 Irrigation Systems and Design

According to SMEs and utility staff, the market has been gradually moving away from gravity-based

irrigation systems toward drip and microsprinkler system. This is primarily due to decreased water

availability and because farmers are increasingly tearing out field and row crops to replace them with

fruit and nut trees, which require different irrigation systems. The 2013 USDA Farm and Ranch

Irrigation Survey (FRIS) supports this assumption to an extent, as does the 2010 California Irrigation

Methods Survey Results by Crop Category. According to the latter source, use of all irrigation types

have increased in terms of acreage, although the share of low-volume systems has increased the most

steadily, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Irrigation Methods Survey Share of System Type (All Crop Types)

Source: 2010 California Irrigation Methods Survey Results

Similarly, the FRIS, shows that gravity and sprinkler systems have decreased in terms of acreage from

2008 to 2013, although they have actually increased in terms of total farms using these systems. The use

of drip, trickle, or low-flow micro systems have increased by around 20 percent, as shown in Error! Not a

valid bookmark self-reference..

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Gravity Sprinkler Low Volume Other

Percent Share by Irrigation System Type

1991 2001 2010


Table 18. FRIS Data for California Land Irrigated by Water Distribution Type

System

Type Total Gravity Systems Sprinkler Systems

Drip, Trickle, or Low-

Flow Microsprinklers

Metric Acres

Irrigated Farms

Acres

Irrigated Farms

Acres

Irrigated Farms

Acres

Irrigated

2008 7,329,245 15,530 4,189,852 18,369 1,367,179 21,253 2,336,130

2013 7,543,928 15,231 4,539,426 13,479 1,662,125 25,408 2,783,022

Percentage

Change 3% -2% 8% -27% 22% 20% 19%

Source: 2014 USDA Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey (FRIS)

In looking solely at low-flow systems, FRIS data shows that the use of drip systems has increased in

California, both in terms of irrigated acreage and number of farms using these systems. However, usage

of microsprinklers has actually declined both in acreage and in number of farms, as shown in Table 19.

The FRIS data does not indicate whether growers are converting their systems from microsprinklers to a

different irrigation type, or whether they are simply removing their microsprinklers. However, while

there is an apparent trend toward low-flow systems, this data shows that there in fact has not been a

trend toward microsprinklers, in particular. The California Irrigation Methods Survey groups low-

volume systems together, therefore Navigant was unable to cross-reference this study with the findings

from FRIS in this context.

Table 19. California Land Irrigated by Low-Flow Water Distribution Type

System

Type

Total Low-Flow

Systems Surface Drip Subsurface Drip

Low-Flow

Microsprinklers

Metric Farms Acres

Irrigated Farms

Acres

Irrigated Farms

Acres

Irrigated Farms

Acres

Irrigated

2008 21,253 2,336,130 12,781 1,246,243 648 242,235 9,344 847,652

2013 25,408 2,783,022 16,106 1,588,184 1,463 369,828 9,152 746,104

% Change 20% 19% 26% 27% 126% 53% -2% -12%

Source: 2014 USDA Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey

Eight of the interview respondents claimed to have changed their irrigation systems in the last five years.

These growers changed from various system types – including flood, furrow, hand-move sprinkler, drag

lines, drip and microsprinkler – to primarily drip or microsprinkler systems. When asked the reason for

changing their irrigation system types, farmers mentioned the unavailability of water, improved

distribution uniformity, labor efficiency, and improved yield and quality of the crop when using drip

and microsprinkler systems. Three of these respondents claimed that drip and microsprinkler systems

save water when compared to their old systems (flood, furrow, and drag line, respectively). In reality,

on-farm water savings can depend heavily on a farmer’s irrigation practices, although these systems


tend to provide increased control over the application of water when compared to flood, furrow, and

other irrigation types.

The shift from gravity to low-flow systems could potentially increase energy sales, as these systems

require added pressurization. Findings from the 2010-2012 Market Characterization support this,

indicating that the use of surface water is declining within this segment as farms convert their land use

to higher value crops. Because irrigation district water is not always available when farmers need it, the

segment is trending toward the widespread adoption of pressurized groundwater systems. To

accommodate this vast adoption of new irrigation technology, many irrigation districts are investing in

modern water delivery systems. However, market experts agree that the trend toward pressurized

irrigation systems will continue, and will have a significant impact on the segment’s electricity

consumption. Utilities such as PG&E have recently introduced an agriculture-specific deemed incentive

for pump motor VFD retrofits, and intend to offer a similar incentive for new pump motors. If the trend

toward pressurized irrigation systems continues, VFD program such as these could be an important

feature in utilities’ agriculture programs.

To further understand irrigation equipment installations and usage, Navigant asked farmers about their

on-farm irrigation systems. Sixteen of eighteen farmers reportedly used microsprinklers or drip systems

on at least part of their farm. Most of the growers with large farms indicated that they have had these

systems in place for long periods – typically between 10-25 years. Of the six small respondents who used

either microsprinkler or drip irrigation, three had older systems while two had systems less than five

years old. Two small farmers also still used flood irrigation for their field crops. Table 20 shows the types

of irrigation systems mentioned by small, medium, and large farmers.20

Table 20. Irrigation System Types on Respondents' Farms

Farm Size Crop Types Number of

Respondents Drip

Micro-

sprinkler

Other

Sprinkler Flood

Small

Tree nuts,

citrus, tree fruit

(avocados,

persimmons),

wine grapes,

feed for cows

(wheat and

corn)

8 2 4 - 2

Medium

Tree nuts,

olives, grapes,

field crops,

citrus, rice

5 5 2 2 1

20 For this table, the sizes of the farms are based on respondent self-reports rather than Navigant’s classification of

farm size.


Farm Size Crop Types Number of

Respondents Drip

Micro-

sprinkler

Other

Sprinkler Flood

Large

Tree nuts,

olives, rice,

vineyards,

vegetables,

melons, cut

flowers

(outdoor),

prunes

5 5 1 4 -

Total - 18 12 7 6 3



When asked why they chose to install the type of irrigation system that they chose, growers mentioned

water efficiency, distribution uniformity, the needs of certain crop types, and increased yield and quality

of the crop that results from drip irrigation. While most farmers reportedly used one system type per

each crop type, two medium-to-large operations used a combination of drip and microsprinkler systems

on a single crop type for different purposes. In particular, one farmer who used these systems on wheat

and vegetables claimed he would use hand-move sprinklers for germination or setting vegetable

transplants, while he would use a buried drip system to irrigate throughout the growing season.

Another farmer claimed he would irrigate his almonds using a drip system and would use

microsprinklers only for frost protection. The latter farmer owned a medium-sized operation that also

grew rice using a flood irrigation system. When asked about his drip system, this farmer claimed that he

had previously installed a similar system in an orchard north of Chico, and he found that the system was

so efficient and grew such good trees that he wanted to convert his current orchard to drip irrigation.

However, because he also used microsprinklers for frost control, his utility did not consider his system

to be exclusively drip and therefore would not rebate his installation.

These grower interviews supported the assumption that drip and microsprinkler irrigation are becoming

prevalent within the industry. However, most of the growers whom Navigant interviewed grew

orchards or vegetables; there may be more efficiency opportunities to promote low-flow systems among

field crop farmers throughout California. Utilities should note that low-flow systems might not be

appropriate for all crops. For example, crops such as rice require high amounts of water, and growers

often will prioritize the health of their crops over water or energy efficiency. Addressing the market by

crop type could help utilities to distinguish between late adopters and farmers who use water-intensive

systems because their crops require it. Utilities can then address these late adopters directly to identify

barriers to technological adoption.

Operating Pressures

All medium-to-large farmers were able to explain the operating pressures at which they ran their

systems. Of the small farmers interviewed, only half of the farmers knew the operating pressures that

they used for their irrigation systems. All but one respondent claimed to be using the operating pressure

from the original system design; the one respondent who had changed the operating pressure had set it

to a lower pressure due to the drought. Of the 12 respondents who reportedly monitored their operating

pressure, 11 used the standard pressure gauges on the original system to do so. Two farmers used hand-

held sensors in addition to the standard pressure gauges, while one used an Aquavar variable speed

pump controller. The range of operating pressures reported by farmers is included in


Table 21.


Table 21. Respondents’ Operating Pressures by System Type

Grower Size Crop Type(s) System Type Operating Pressure (psi)

Grower #1 Small Avocados Microsprinkler 150

Grower #2 Small Citrus Microsprinkler 35-90

Grower #3 Small Olives Drip 30

Grower #4 Small Citrus Microsprinkler Don’t Know

Grower #5 Small Wheat and corn Flood Don’t Know

Grower #6 Small Tree nuts,

persimmons Surface drip Don’t Know

Grower #7 Small Tree nuts Flood Don’t Know

Grower #8 Small Citrus Microsprinklers 30

Grower #9 Medium Citrus, avocado,

wine grapes

Microsprinkler, drip (for

grapes)

Microsprinkler: 20

Drip: 15

Grower #10 Medium Rice and tree nuts Flood (rice), drip,

microsprinkler

Sprinkler: 40-50

Drip: 18

Grower #11 Medium Tree nuts, prunes,

olives Sprinkler, drip

Sprinkler: 40

Drip: 20

Grower #12 Medium Tree nuts, olives Drip and microsprinkler Microsprinkler: 25-40

Drip: 40-60

Grower #13 Medium Cut flowers Drip 70

Grower #14 Large

Tree nuts, raisin

grapes, field crops,

alfalfa

Pivot, sprinkler, drip

Pivot: 20

Sprinkler: 25-30

Drip posts: 25

Drip tape: 10-12

Grower #15 Large Vegetables Drip and sprinkler Sprinkler: 70-80

Drip: 10-12

Grower #16 Large

Tree nuts,

vegetables, cotton,

melons, wheat

Drip 35-50

Grower #17 Large Vegetables, tree

nuts, grapes Drip and sprinkler

Sprinkler: 35-38

Drip: 12

Grower #18 Large Tree nuts, rice,

olives

Microsprinkler, some

drip 40-45

Note: See Table 9 for size delineations.



Although nearly all growers stated that they use the original operating pressures from the original

design, utility staff expressed concern over the lack of third-party standards for pressure requirements.

According to one utility staff member, market-leading companies require less pressure for their systems

in order to achieve the same output. However, industry manuals typically do not state this, and because

there are no third-party standards for operating pressures, installers often over-design the systems to

ensure that systems produce sufficient water regardless of the manufacturer.

One SME expressed additional concerns regarding operating pressures, explaining that even though

growers would not change operating pressures without a reason, sometimes system wear can lead to

changes in operating pressures. This SME stated that a number of evaluations were conducted in 2014

for a pilot program, which reviewed operating pressures in addition to conducting pump efficiency

tests. Although the results from this study were not available at the time of the interview, the SME

claimed that those systems that were evaluated were 11 percent more efficient than those that were not

evaluated regularly. Given this, Navigant recommends that utilities perform tests on operating pressures

at the time of pump efficiency tests to ensure that the system is running according to its original design.

Distribution Uniformity

Grower interviews suggested that most farmers do not formally track distribution uniformity on a

regular basis. Navigant asked 14 of the growers whether they tracked distribution uniformity in their

operations. All but two small growers reported that they did track it in some form, however, they

seemed to track this manually by looking at gauges, and did not track this regularly.

Of the seven farmers who claimed to track distribution uniformity in-house, only two indicated that they

use a formal method of tracking this information. These two farmers both monitored on a daily basis.

One of these farmers had a large operation and grew a variety of crops on 9,600 irrigated acres of land,

using flood, furrow, and hand-move sprinklers. The other farmer had 41 irrigated acres of citrus fruits

and used microsprinklers. This suggests that while most farmers do not formally track distribution

uniformity, those who do may not fall exclusively into a size or crop category.

Five growers stated that they have received information on distribution uniformity from third-party

evaluations in the past, such as PG&E pump tests, UC Extension studies, and NRCS evaluations. Only

one respondent who used a third party claimed that they receive this information regularly (annually).

Utilities should consider offering farmers regular system optimization tests in addition to pump

efficiency tests. By providing information on operating pressures and distribution uniformity, utilities

can ensure farmers’ overall systems are running efficiently, which could save both water and energy.

Moisture Sensors

The use of soil moisture monitoring systems was prevalent among the larger growers, but uncommon

among small growers. All respondents with a large or medium-sized farm used some form of soil

moisture monitoring system. Most indicated that they used basic moisture sensors, but some growers

either had or were considering buying systems that are more sophisticated. These systems included

combinations of features such as flow meters, gypsum probes, infrared guns, and on-farm weather

stations. Three of these growers indicated that in the past, they had used PureSense, a third-party

environmental management firm. However, these growers claimed that the company went out of


business, although Navigant could not find evidence that the company had gone out of business. Two of

these three farmers continued to use moisture sensors in-house, while the third began using the

ClimateMinder application by Rain Bird.

Two growers were also in the early stages of acquiring pressure bombs, a device that measures the

moisture content of the crop’s leaves. The larger of these two growers had recently purchased one of

these devices, while the medium-sized grower was planning to split the cost of a pressure bomb that he

would share with a neighboring farm. This suggests that while growers are using irrigation technology

that is more advanced, cost is still a barrier to widespread adoption of these devices.

The cost barrier is relevant even for existing technologies such as basic moisture sensors. While medium-

to-large growers all used moisture monitoring systems, this does not mean that they are employing these

technologies on a broad scale. For example, one large farmer operated 6,000 irrigated acres, but could not

afford to use moisture sensors on all of his plots. Instead, he used only three moisture sensors and placed

those in plots that were representative of his other fields – one with heavy clay soil, one with medium

soil, and one with sandy soil. This farmer would then apply the moisture readings to the rest of his land

and irrigate his other fields accordingly. This illustrates that large farms are willing to pursue energy and

water conservation, but remain constrained by the initial costs of these technologies. Utilities should

consider providing incentives for these monitoring technologies, as farmers can currently only use them

on a minimal scale.

With regard to the eight small farmers interviewed, only one claimed to use moisture sensors or

irrigation controls. The rest relied on visual inspection of the plants or had a set irrigation schedule that

they might alter based on the weather. Two of the farmers said they used to have moisture sensors, but

either the devices had broken or the farmer removed them because he could not tell if they were making

a difference. These responses suggest that the use of moisture sensors or irrigation controls are not

standard practice on small farms, and utilities may want to consider incentivizing moisture monitoring

systems on small farms to encourage water conservation.


2.4.2.2 Pumps and Motors

Navigant asked farmers about their irrigation water source and their pumps and motors. Twelve of the

eighteen farmers used wells for their irrigation water, although some farmers had multiple water

sources on their land. The depths of these wells varied, from 150 feet to 2,400 feet, with the average well

depth coming to around 515 feet. Pumps were either electric or diesel; no respondents used natural gas

pumps in their operations. Table 22 shows the average number of electric pumps on the farm, as well as

the size ranges and pump and motor types.

Table 22. Pumps and Motors on Respondents' Farms

Farm Size Avg. No. of

Electric Pumps

Avg. No. of

Elec. Booster

Pumps

Pump/Motor

Size Range (hp) Pump Types

Motor

Types

Small (8) 3* 1 1-100

Turbine,

submersible,

centrifugal

AC**

Medium (5) 9 1 2-175

Turbine,

submersible,

induction

AC,

induction

motors

Large (5) 38* 9* 30-450 Turbine,

centrifugal AC

*Each of these values may be skewed slightly due to a single outlier. With regard to small farms, one respondent

had eight pumps on his farm. If one were to exclude this respondent from the calculation, the average number of

electric pumps on small farms would be two. Similarly, one large respondent only had three electric pumps on deep

wells. If one were to exclude this respondent from the calculation, the average number of electric pumps on large

farms would be 46. Regarding booster pumps on large farms, three of the five respondents did not use booster

pumps. The other two had 10 and 40 booster pumps, respectively.

**Only three of the eight small respondents were able to identify the types of motors that they used in their

operations. A third respondent answered “AC/DC,” however given this farmer’s size and other responses, the

evaluation team has determined that his motors are likely AC.


Most of the pumps on respondents’ land were over five years old, and two small farmers had pumps

over 35 years old on their land. Eight respondents claimed to have at least one new pumps (installed

within the last five years), yet only three of these new pumps were installed on new wells. Navigant did

not ask farmers about their pump efficiency due to time constraints. However, when speaking with a

SME from the Cal Poly Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC), he stated that it is difficult to

find a new motor that is inefficient due to the standards placed on motors at the manufacturer level. This

SME also stated that if farmers install a VFD on a new motor, they likely will install a premium motor, as

well.

Two large farmers claimed to have received incentives for their new pump installations, while a third,

large grower claimed he might have received an incentive for his motor replacement but not the pump.


One small grower claimed he applied for an incentive but had not yet received it. When asked how

influential the incentive was on their choice of pump and motor equipment, all but one respondent

indicated that they would most likely have installed the same equipment at the same time if an incentive

had not been available. However, two respondents claimed that they would not have installed VFDs on

their systems if there had not been an incentive.

Pump and Motor Maintenance

Nearly all farmers claimed that they replace pump and motor equipment only upon failure. Navigant

asked 14 of the respondents whether there was anything that would motivate them to replace equipment

before it failed. Of these respondents, only one explicitly stated that there was nothing that would

convince him to replace his equipment early. This individual was a large grower with 60 pumps who

conducts complete well tests every other year. The remaining respondents offered a variety of answers;

however, the overarching message was that farmers might replace their equipment early if the efficiency

of the new equipment was significantly higher than that of their existing equipment, and if they knew

the cost savings would make it worth the investment. Four respondents indicated that financial

incentives or utility assistance would help to convince them, and three also mentioned that the reliability

of their existing equipment would factor into their decision. Notably, two respondents (one medium,

one small) stated that if incentives were available for VFDs, they would be willing to install VFDs on

their systems. This suggests that growers are willing to pursue efficiency measures, but are constrained

by costs. Increased awareness of available incentives may encourage growers to take further efficiency

actions.

When asked about equipment maintenance, three of the five large farmers indicated that they have

somewhat regular maintenance schedules. None of the small or medium-sized farmers conducted

maintenance or repairs on a regular basis. When asked whether they conduct regular pump efficiency

tests, all large farmers reportedly conduct annual or semi-annual pump tests through utilities’ pump

efficiency test programs. Four of the five medium-sized farmers had also conducted pump tests in the

past, although they were typically not a regular practice and only one grower had done them through a

utility program. Of the eight small growers interviewed, only five of them had ever conducted a pump

efficiency test, and these were typically one-time tests. One small grower claimed that they conducted in-

house pump efficiency tests every week by reading his smart meter and referencing that against their

pumping pressure and the amount of water delivered. However, this grower was the exception, as most

of the small farmers claimed that they were not interested in conducting them because they felt they

were unnecessary. This may indicate that small- and medium-sized growers are unaware of utilities’

subsidized pump efficiency tests, or that they do not see the value in them. Navigant recommends that

utilities target small- and medium-sized growers for their pump efficiency test program.

For the respondents who conduct pump efficiency tests through a utility program, Navigant asked the

likelihood that they would perform these tests if their utility had not subsidized them. All respondents

who relied on subsidies for their pump tests stated that they either would not conducts these tests at all,

or that they would do so less frequently. This suggests that pump efficiency tests are not standard

practice, and that if an incentive were not available, farmers would likely not conduct efficiency tests on

a regular basis, if at all.


VFDs

As shown in Table 23, large farms were much more likely to have VFDs on their pumps than medium or

small farms, and these tended to be on larger pumps. Only one respondent claimed to have VFDs on all

his pumps. This respondent was a medium-sized farmer who grew tree nuts, prunes and olives. This

particular farmer also had soft-starts on all of his pumps. The remaining respondents with VFDs did not

give specific numbers when asked how many VFDs they had. Rather, respondents estimated that they

had “a few” VFDs, or stated they had VFDs on their large pumps. This suggests that farmers do not

closely track their VFD installations, although two farmers stated they had future VFD installations

planned.

Table 23. VFD Installations on Irrigated Farms

Farm Size Number of

Respondents VFDs

Received an

Incentive

Small 8 1* 0

Medium 5 3 0

Large 5 5 4

*A third small farmer also had a VFD, but it was on a milk pump for his dairy operation.

Therefore, Navigant excluded that VFD from the irrigation analysis.


Including the aforementioned medium-sized farmer, five respondents overall claimed they installed

VFDs on new pumps. Three of these respondents were large farmers, and two were medium-sized. Two

of the three large farmers had VFDs on all new well pumps, as well as some on their older pumps. The

other large respondent indicated that he had VFDs on the majority of his pumps, most of which were on

new pumps; this suggests that this grower also regularly installed VFDs on new pumps as a standard

practice. One of the two medium-sized growers stated that he had VFDs on all of his pumps over 10hp,

which included one new pump. The final respondent, as discussed before, had VFDs on all of his

pumps.

When asked why they installed VFDs, most respondents claimed that VFDs help the systems to run

properly. Two growers mentioned efficiency, and one claimed that their service provider suggested it to

reduce noise pollution from their old pump. One large farmer claimed that he installed the VFDs for the

incentives, and had also installed soft starts on his equipment. The SME from the ITRC stated that he has

been seeing an increase of VFD installations where farmers consolidate a well and a booster pump.

Furthermore, this SME argued that VFDs are becoming more common because the prices are slowly

falling, and also that they are more common on drip systems than on other system types because of the

different block sizes that farmers must irrigate. Given the correlation of drip systems with different crop

types, the use of VFDs may have some dependence on the crop types.

Overall, large farmers tended to take advantage of VFD incentives more so than small farmers did. Of

the farmers who did not install VFDs, the small- and medium-sized farmers typically claimed that they

were too expensive. As previously mentioned, two farmers stated that if incentives were available for

VFDs, they would be interested in installing them. This indicates that farmers may not be aware of VFD


incentives and therefore are unable to participate in these programs due to lack of awareness. Two

farmers also expressed concern about noise interference, and another farmer claimed that his pump

company was “anti-VFD” because they did not believe VFDs were efficient. This farmer stated his pump

company therefore did not offer him a choice to install them.

These findings suggest that VFDs are not standard practice for small- to medium-sized farmers, and that

some farmers may be unaware of the efficiency opportunities available to them. Furthermore, although

all large farmers had at least one VFD, they tended to only have VFDs on their large pumps. This

suggests that there are still efficiency opportunities within the large farms, as well, indicating that VFDs

may not be standard practice for large farms, either.

2.5 Decision Making

Growers’ decisions regarding equipment installations, energy and water management, and usage and

maintenance practices are subject to a number of factors that do not apply to other industries. These

factors can include weather, water availability, and equipment availability, which affect the agricultural

sector in a uniquely direct way. The following subsections describe some of the ways in which these

factors affect growers’ operational decisions.

2.5.1 Greenhouses

When asked about their decision-making process for installing equipment, nearly all greenhouse

growers explained that they first considered their need for the equipment. Growers will typically repair

any dysfunctional equipment until it fails. If they are unable to repair this equipment, they will consider

the cost and payback of the replacement equipment, as well as its efficiency. One grower also stated that

he regularly looks to see whether there are any utility incentives available when installing equipment,

indicating that incentives do play a role in growers’ equipment choices.

When deciding on equipment, five respondents stated that they sometimes work with outside

contractors, vendors, or retailers, although it depends on the equipment. Navigant asked growers to

what extent these outside contractors influence their equipment selection. Growers stated that these

contractors have some influence. However, typically growers’ will already have done their own research

by speaking with internal maintenance staff, other growers in the industry, and various vendors to make

a decision on their equipment installations. One greenhouse contractor whom Navigant interviewed

concurred with this finding, stating that growers typically will have an idea of what they want to install,

and the contractors help them to identify the correct piece of equipment for their needs.

Growers also explained that they discuss their options with their internal staff, and will often talk with

other growers in their area. As the 2010-2012 Market Characterization stated, “California greenhouse and

nursery operations tend to be geographically clustered and closely networked.” Navigant did not

discuss information channels in-depth for this MASI study. However, discussions with growers

suggested that grassroots networking – including discussions with other growers, vendors, utility

representatives, and trade publications – provides a key information channel among growers.


In terms of tracking their energy and water, growers typically monitored their usage by looking at their

bills and occasionally their meters. Only two growers had a computer system that offered this

information, one of whom was a medium-sized grower while another was a small grower. Computer

monitoring may be an area for potential opportunity savings in the future. Greenhouse growers must

account for numerous factors to grow their crops, including temperature, light penetration, humidity,

soil moisture, and ventilation, among others. Computer systems allow growers to monitor these factors

simultaneously. While these systems typically can monitor factors such as energy and water use, these

may not be the highest priority for these growers. Therefore, any monitoring system that utilities might

promote to growers would need to incorporate tracking other key factors in addition to energy and

water usage.


For irrigated agriculture, Navigant asked farmers about the factors that affected their decisions to install

or replace equipment. Farmers’ responses included the efficiency of equipment, the cost of equipment,

and the need for the new equipment. The small farmers, in particular, emphasized first cost and

indicated that they will typically choose to repair equipment instead of replacing it. Medium-sized

farmers had a slightly more complex means of determining whether to repair or replace equipment.

These farmers discussed weighing their options and considering ROI and payback periods, efficiency of

the equipment, available incentives, and the amount of water that is available for irrigation. Two of these

growers also mentioned working with third-party contractors and utility staff when making these

decisions. For the large growers, two stated that efficiency of the equipment was a top priority, and

others mentioned equipment cost, reliability, and labor for their staff. Overall, larger firms tended to take

a longer-term outlook on costs and savings, and considered a variety of factors in their equipment

installations, such as available incentives, maintenance and management costs, and price comparisons

from different vendors. Meanwhile, smaller farms expressed urgency in these decisions and sought

lower-cost options when possible.

Every grower interviewed relied heavily on the knowledge and advice of their contractors, pump

vendors, equipment retailers, electricians, etc. for purchasing, maintenance, and equipment replacement

decisions. Throughout the interview, growers were asked a series of questions relating to their decision-

making process and as to how it pertained to replacing equipment, installing new equipment,

maintenance practices, approaches to pump replacement and/or upgrades, choosing pump or motor

efficiency levels, and pursuing energy-efficiency opportunities. Growers consistently replied that they

regularly deferred to outside judgment. This is not always beneficial, however. In one instance, a

respondent relayed a story about how he expressed interest in a VFD when consulting his contractor, but

the irrigation contractor’s response was that there are no energy savings associated with VFDs and that

the benefits they have on irrigation systems are a myth. The farmer therefore followed the advice of his

contractor and did not pursue a VFD any further. This suggests that utilities should focus education

efforts not only on farmers, but also on contractors working with these farmers.

One factor that is unique to the irrigated agriculture sector is the impact that seasonality has on

equipment-related decisions. In particular, the irrigation season has a crucial impact on farmers’

decisions to replace or repair equipment. Growers showed a propensity to keeping their equipment


operational under any circumstances in order to maintain their irrigation schedule and their crops

properly watered. During the irrigation season, for instance, growers are more likely to conduct repairs

than fully replace equipment. This is because the downtime during equipment replacement can

significantly interrupt their operation and lead to financial losses. Farmers take a similar approach

toward pump efficiency tests, especially if the tests result in a disruption in pump performance. Any

major system changes, such as pump and motor replacements, will be done out of season, where

downtime in system operation is more ideal.

2.6 Key Drivers and Market Trends

California’s agricultural market segment has seen significant trends within the last decade in terms of

equipment usage, water availability, and crop types grown, among others. However, market trends were

not a key focus in the scope of this MASI. The following sub-sections discuss the market trends that

arose in discussions with program staff, SMEs, and growers throughout the course of this MASI. It is

important to note that this section does not represent all of the trends that are currently taking place in

the market, but rather a high-level discussion of those that interview respondents mentioned during

their interviews.

Arguably the most significant trend affecting California’s agriculture segment is the current drought

conditions throughout the state. Approximately 95 percent of California is currently in drought, and

scientists predict that California may soon be experiencing a ‘megadrought.’21 As mentioned in the 2010-

2012 Market Characterization, “Already, the Southwestern US has seen regular decreases in

precipitation, as well as spring snowpack and river flow. Each of these represents a critical supply of

water for the region. The Southwest’s natural susceptibility to drought further amplifies these water

shortages, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) anticipates that the current water

scarcity will be ‘compounded by the region’s rapid population growth, which is the highest in the

nation.’”22 These trends have already led to the lowering of water tables throughout the state which will

mean that California’s agricultural producers will need to drill deeper in order to access the water. This

likely will further exacerbate water scarcity across the state.

In the last few decades, California and the Southwest also have seen increasing average ambient

temperatures and a decline in the number of winter chill hours.23 This is particularly true in the Bay

Delta region and the mid-Sacramento Valley, which have seen greatest rates of change since the 1950s. In

general, cold extremes have become less frequent, while heat waves are becoming increasingly

prominent in the region. Indeed, studies have shown that in extreme scenarios, heat waves such as the

one experienced in July 2006 may occur as frequently as once a year in many parts of California.24

These environmental changes will have direct impacts on California’s agricultural industry, although

certain market segments may feel the effects more acutely. Appendix E provides an excerpt from

21 CBS News, “California could be in for century-long megadrought.” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-

could-be-in-for-century-long-megadrought/.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-could-be-in-for-century-long-megadrought/



Navigant’s 2010-2012 Market Characterization that describes the impacts that these environmental

changes could have on California’s agricultural subsectors.

2.6.1 Market Trends in California Greenhouses and Nurseries

Market trends were not a key focus of this MASI; however, some SMEs and greenhouse growers

mentioned market trends during the course of the interviews. Navigant has included these trends here.

It is important to note, however, that this section does not include an exhaustive discussion of the

current events occurring within the market. Rather, this section provides a high-level overview of

relevant trends that arose during the course of the MASI interviews.

A key market trend, California’s greenhouse and nursery segment is increasingly facing competition

from other markets, particularly in South America. For example, in the last decade, California’s rose

industry has shrunk considerably throughout the state. SMEs estimated that the number of rose growers

currently in the market were between five and ten. The 2013 California Agriculture Census estimates

that there were 26 rose growers as of 2012, as compared to 150 rose growers in 1991.25 This decline has

occurred primarily due to price competition with countries such as Ecuador and Mexico, whose cost of

production is significantly lower than that of California roses. While some growers have gone out of

business due to this market loss, others have mitigated the impact by shifting focus to other products,

such as Gerbera daisies. Because Gerberas are comparatively more delicate than roses, and can be

damaged easily in international shipping. Therefore, while the production of roses has largely been

outsourced to South America, California floriculturists have created a niche market by producing crops

that retain their quality when grown locally. This increasing international competition has created

uncertainty in the market, and has caused some growers to be increasingly cost-conscious and risk

averse.

As of the 2010-2012 Market Characterization, the container nursery sub-segment had been seeing slightly

differing trends, as production is still largely domestic. The primary issue for this sub-segment is

regulations, and because much of this market is devoted to landscaping, the downturn of the housing

market had created a downturn for this market, as well. In order to cope with this, some major

producers were moving out the country to places where they can produce more cost effectively.

Additionally, smaller companies were losing traction within the segment, as they were either going out

of business or being swallowed by the major producers. Because of this, growers have been increasingly

cost-conscious. This could present an opportunity for utilities to encourage energy efficiency by

educating growers about the potential savings that they might gain.

One SME explained that the greenhouse segment is also beginning to see the introduction of new crops

that farmers had previously grown outdoors. The increased prevalence of pests throughout the state has

been a primary driver of this trend, as the pests increasingly harm crops such has oranges and tomatoes.

The 2012 USDA Agriculture Census data did not track citrus grown indoors; therefore, Navigant was

unable to verify this trend for oranges. However, census data supported this trend for tomatoes, having

shown a 12 percent decrease in acres of tomatoes grown in the open from 2007-2012, with a 41 percent

25 Santa Cruz Sentinel, “Editorial: Cheap imports winning war of the roses.”

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/20140807/editorial-cheap-imports-winning-war-of-the-roses.

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/20140807/editorial-cheap-imports-winning-war-of-the-roses


increase in square footage of tomatoes grown in greenhouses during the same period. If this trend

continues, California may see an increase in greenhouse space in the near future, and the equipment

installation practices may alter based on the crop grown. Given the relatively high value of crops such as

oranges and tomatoes, these growers may be to afford higher-efficiency equipment, which could present

an opportunity for utilities to promote energy efficiency in new construction.

2.6.2 Market Trends in California Irrigated Agriculture

California’s irrigated agriculture segment is also highly dependent on the global market, and is therefore

vulnerable to shifts in global demand. For example, China recently has begun to take a strong anti-GMO

stance in its agricultural imports. This has had a negative effect on some US industries, including hay. In

summer 2014, China began testing their hay imports for the presence of hay made from biotech alfalfa. A

recent article in The Australian newspaper explains the effects on the US market:

With Chinese dairy producers eager to feed high-protein US alfalfa to cows, US exports of alfalfa hay

to China had jumped more than eightfold from 2009 to 2013, reaching nearly 785,000 tons, and

accounted for a quarter of such exports in the first 10 months of this year. But as exporters scrambled

to ensure their cargoes didn’t contain the genetically modified alfalfa, which was developed by

Monsanto, shipments tumbled 22 per cent by weight from August to October from a year earlier,

according to US Agriculture Department data.26

This decrease in Chinese demand for hay could have a significant impact on the California agriculture

market, as California is the second-largest producer of hay in the U.S.27 Hay is California’s 15th highest

agricultural export, with California having exported $333 million of hay in 2013.28 Some California

growers have altered their own operations in order to cope with changing international demand. In

particular, Navigant’s interviews with SMEs and utility staff highlighted a trend in which California

farmers are uprooting their field or row crops and replacing them with tree nuts, which are typically

more water-intensive than field or row crops. Data from the 2013 USDA Agricultural Census Data

supports this finding, showing a 51 percent increase in irrigated pistachio acreage, a 24 percent increase

in irrigated walnut acreage, and an 18 percent increase in irrigated almond acreage.29 According to one

IOU staff member, farmers base these decisions on risk and profit, as prices for nuts have increased due

to expanded overseas markets for these crops. The increased profit margin for nuts can offset the initial

26 The Australian, “US hay exports shrivel as Beijing rejects GM.” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-

street-journal/us-hay-exports-shrivel-as-beijing-rejects-gm/story-fnay3ubk-1227157131674. 27 National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 2014, 2012 Census of Agriculture: United States. U.S. Department of

Agriculture. Report No. AC-12-A-551.


all.pdf. 28 University of California Agricultural Issues Center, 2013, California Agricultural Exports, California Department of

Food and Agriculture, file:///C:/Users/kmidura/Downloads/2013_ExportsSection.pdf 29 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Pacific Regional Office-California. (2013). California Agricultural

Statistics 2012 Crop Year.


all.pdf.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/us-hay-exports-shrivel-as-beijing-rejects-gm/story-fnay3ubk-1227157131674







capital cost of converting farmers’ fields, and farmers may see a more stable international market for

these crops as compared to field crops such as hay.

As a result of environmental pressures and shifts in crop type, growers are changing their irrigation

system types to suit the needs of the plant. In particular, with the market trending toward tree nuts,

growers are increasingly turning to drip systems. The 2014 FRIS data support this finding; California

farms using gravity and sprinkler systems declined at a rate of 2 percent and 27 percent, respectively,

between 2008 and 2013, although by acreage these irrigation types increased on both accounts.

Meanwhile, drip, trickle, and low-flow systems throughout California increased by 20 percent in terms

of farms using these systems, and 19 percent in terms of overall acreage irrigated using these methods.

SMEs also highlighted the trend toward drip irrigation, and they expect that this trend will continue into

the future as water becomes scarcer and energy prices rise.

The grower interviews supported these findings in the shift toward drip, microsprinkler, and low-flow

irrigation systems. Sixteen of the eighteen growers interviewed commented that their current irrigation

systems are comprised of drip and/or microsprinklers, either as a portion or as their entire system. Six of

the eighteen growers mentioned adopting drip and microsprinkler practices within the last five years,

four of which have switched from furrow/flood irrigation systems and two from dragline irrigation

systems. In addition, one of the growers who did not utilize drip or microsprinkler irrigation, but rather

flood irrigation, commented that he is looking into and planning to make the switch within a year or

two.

In addition to adopting pressurized irrigation, many farmers who previously relied on diesel engines are

changing to electric motors, according to the 2010-2012 Market Characterization. The combination of

these trends will make it critical for utilities to recognize and adapt to the increasing electric

consumption that will likely arise in the near future. Pressurized irrigation systems can be extremely

energy intensive, thus highlighting the need for farmers to improve pump efficiency on their farms. One

SME from the Market Characterization emphasized the need to develop crop rotations using a whole-

farm systems approach, with a particular focus on the type of irrigation method that is best suited to the

crop. To help mitigate increasing electricity consumption, utilities should help individual field crop

customers to develop holistic farm design strategies. Emphasizing pump optimization and crop-specific

irrigation technologies will be vital for utilities working with this segment. There is also increasing

opportunity for utilities to promote ancillary services such as water recirculation pumps and water

storage, which could reduce the use of electricity for groundwater pumping.

2.7 Key Barriers

The primary barrier for agricultural customers across all sectors is first cost of the equipment. In both the

MASI interviews and in the Market Characterization, growers consistently cited financial constraints as a

reason for not installing higher-efficiency equipment. Even owners of large farms express concerns with

staying in business, and must be resourceful in their use of measures such as soil moisture sensors.

Utilities can mitigate these concerns to an extent with rebates. However, utilities must be proactive in

marketing their programs, as farmers are often too engrossed in their day-to-day operations to seek out

efficiency measures.


Growers’ tendency to repair equipment until it fails presents another barrier for utilities promoting early

replacement programs. Because agricultural operators rely to an extent on third-party contractors,

utilities could leverage contractors to promote efficiency equipment. However, contractors could present

an additional barrier, as some contractors are reportedly deterring customers from installing measures

such as VFDs because they are not convinced of the savings. One greenhouse contractor whom Navigant

spoke to for the SME interviews also stated that he rarely promote utilities’ energy-efficiency programs

to customers because length of time that it takes to receive a rebate makes it difficult for growers’ to plan

their installations around the rebate. Furthermore, if a grower does not receive the full amount of the

rebate that the utility markets, then it reflects poorly on the contractor.

Similarly, one irrigated agriculture SME explained that pump companies are so busy with installations

that they will perform the post-installation pump tests at the time of installation, which is typically

during the off-season. Because the off-season is winter, the rainiest season, the water tables will be

higher during the post-installation tests than they are during pre-installation. This can skew the amount

of savings reported – and therefore, the amount of rebate money received – which will disincentivize

growers from considering utility programs when installing new equipment. The uncertainty around

utility incentives, for both irrigated agriculture and greenhouse customers, can deter agricultural

customers from adopting higher-efficiency measures that may be affordable with the support of financial

incentives.

In addition to these barriers, there are also a number of barriers that are specific to greenhouses and

irrigated agriculture operations, respectively. The following subsections discuss this barrier further.

2.7.1 Greenhouse-Specific Barriers

A key technical barrier for greenhouses is the sensitivity of different crops to various environmental

conditions within a greenhouse. Different crop types can be highly dependent on temperature, light, and

humidity, among other factors. This can limit growers’ options for equipment – for instance, a grower

with highly light-sensitive plants may choose not to install highly insulating shell material because it lets

through too much light. One SME also pointed out that the color of certain lights, such as LEDs, can be

detrimental to growth of certain plants. Therefore, although certain equipment may encourage energy

efficiency, a grower’s top priority is ensuring the health and quality of the crops.

As a whole, the California greenhouse market is less prone to pursuing cutting-edge efficiency measures

than other global markets, due primarily to financial constraints. According to one greenhouse SME,

Israel and the Netherlands are the most progressive greenhouse agriculture markets in the world due to

their advanced greenhouse technology, but it is difficult for California growers to adopt these same

technologies because of the costs associated with implementation. The Netherlands is the center of the

European flower market, which enables Dutch growers to operate large, entirely mechanized

greenhouses. Israel’s advanced technology is attributable to its climate; many crops are impossible to

grow outdoors in Israel’s heat, so growers there have developed advanced technologies for greenhouse

glazing, molded plastics, and insect screening to protect the crops. Given the high level of competition in

the California greenhouse industry, along with the high cost of inputs and labor, many greenhouse


operations have relocated from California to Central and South America in order to avoid having to

install a mechanized system. Those that remain in California tend to operate as simply and economically

as possible; staying in business is a higher priority to California growers than investing in state-of-the-art

technology. The availability of cost-effective, advanced greenhouse technologies may be inhibiting

California growers from being competitive in the broader agricultural market.

2.7.2 Irrigated Agriculture-Specific Barriers

Farmers in irrigated agriculture are primarily concerned with the function of their irrigation systems and

their need to maintain the health of their crops. Because of this, farmers will prioritize having their

systems running over energy efficiency. One farmer explained that he often has to install his own

equipment because his contractors are too busy to install his systems when he needs them. This has

happened both for pump installations and for his drip irrigation system on a new orchard. Furthermore,

this grower stated that suppliers in his area sometimes run out of certain equipment in stock, and that he

is often constrained by what the supplier has in stock. Because he has had to install his own systems due

to scheduling conflicts, and because his contractor likely had not presented him with a full range of

equipment options, this grower may have missed out on both rebates and on efficiency opportunities in

his installations. Other growers also mentioned that both their suppliers and their utility representatives

are often too busy to sit down with them and discuss efficiency opportunities. The high demand for

these suppliers’ and representatives’ time may be leading to missed opportunities in energy efficiency

within the market.

Furthermore, some growers may not see the financial sense in investing in energy saving technologies.

In the minds of some small- to medium-sized growers, their systems are not consuming enough

electricity to warrant expensive, energy saving equipment such as VFDs or soil moisture sensors. Small

growers often rely on their experience and knowledge to operate their equipment rather than data and

analytics the larger growers are trending toward. This is true, to an extent, for medium and large sized

growers, as well. When explaining how he makes decisions on irrigation scheduling, one large grower

explained that after he has reviewed all of the information from his sensors and computers, he ultimately

must use his best judgment to determine when and how much to irrigate. Therefore, while sensors and

irrigation data may help growers to make informed decisions about irrigation, it is ultimately the

judgment of the grower that is the determinant in how much to irrigate and when. This may be a barrier

to the adoption of computerized systems for smaller growers, as they may not see the value in

employing these systems.

For those farmers who do rely on computerized systems to schedule their irrigation, the information

available to them depends heavily on the offerings from the software company. Three growers stated

that the company that had developed their app had gone out of business. One of these growers had

found another company to work with, while two began monitoring moisture levels in-house. While

growers are moving toward automated systems based on data analytics, uncertainty around the

technology may inhibit other growers from relying on these systems in the future. Additionally, the

computerized scheduling may not be enough to overcome the significant cost barriers that growers face

– one grower claimed to water-stress his orchards during the week and only irrigate his fields over the

weekends in order to get time-of-use rates for electric pumping. These computerized systems may offer


opportunities for energy and water conservation, but if the technology or the companies offering these

systems are unreliable, then growers may not be able to identify these savings.

2.8 Key Findings and Energy Savings Opportunities

2.8.1 General Findings

For both the greenhouse and irrigated agriculture market segments, the commodity and geographic

location drive growers’ equipment installation and usage practices. While growers consider water and

energy efficiency to an extent, their primary concern is the health and yield of their crops. Growers will

select equipment based on the needs of the crop that they are growing. This may mean that growers will

forgo systems that are more efficient because the crop requires more water to grow. For example, rice

requires high amounts of water; therefore, rice growers may continue to use flood irrigation for these

crops, as low-flow systems may hurt the crop or decrease a farmers’ yield.

The source of an operation’s irrigation water can also play a large role in growers’ equipment

decisions, particularly in irrigated agriculture operations. For example, farms with access to a

municipal water source or close proximity to a river will have fewer expenses related to water pumping

than farms that require drilling new wells or pumping water long distances. When approaching a

grower with programs and information, utilities should consider the operation’s crop types and water

sources, rather than categorizing an operation by its acreage, square footage, or energy consumption.

Addressing the market by crop type could help utilities to distinguish between late adopters and farmers

who use water-intensive systems because their crops require it. Utilities can then address these late

adopters directly to identify barriers to technological adoption.

Growers remain very cost-constrained in their operations, and continue to rely on rebates for many of

their energy-efficiency upgrades. The agricultural industry is moving toward efficiency; however,

growers report that this is largely out of necessity. Many growers continue to struggle financially, and a

number of greenhouses have gone out of business within the last decade. Rebates for high-efficiency

equipment play a critical role in growers’ ability to install high-efficiency equipment, and can help them

to stay in business. Grower interviews suggest this may apply to both large and small operations.

Because of the importance of the agricultural market to California’s economy, and because of the

tenuous financial situation of many agricultural operations, utility incentives can provide some financial

relief to growers who are otherwise unable to install efficient equipment.

2.8.2 Greenhouse Findings

Energy saving opportunities exist within the greenhouse sector, particularly with respect to the

building shell. Interviews for this MASI study indicated that in the absence of utility programs, growers

likely would revert to installing single-layer polyethylene film. However, there are higher-efficiency

materials available for greenhouse shells that may be under-incentivized when compared to the

materials that utilities currently incentivize. This is especially true when considering the measure life of

the different materials. There may be opportunities to increase efficiency by promoting rebates for

higher-efficiency materials, such as polycarbonate or acrylic. Other shell measures such as heat curtains

and shade cloths may present additional energy saving opportunities. However, Navigant’s interviews


suggested that growers may choose to use these materials based on the needs and sensitivity of their

crop, and these rebates therefore may be more applicable for certain crop types rather than for the

industry as a whole.

Although large growers tend to have more capital to invest in efficiency opportunities than small

growers do, the volume of equipment that large must replace can place cost constraints on large

growers’ efficiency efforts. Large growers arguably have more available funding to pursue energy

efficiency than small growers have. However, because of the sheer amount of equipment that they must

repair or upgrade regularly, large growers must pace their upgrades due to cost constraints. Grower and

subject matter expert (SME) interviews revealed that many large growers will put off equipment

upgrades or will revert to lower-efficiency options if there is no incentive available because they cannot

afford to install higher-efficiency equipment. If utilities were to discontinue rebates for large greenhouse

growers, the industry may revert to low-efficiency equipment or practices.

The use of VFDs is becoming more common in greenhouses. However, growers interviewed typically

only use VFDs on large well pumps. There may be efficiency opportunities in offering VFDs on pumps

and motors within the greenhouses, themselves. With the increasing penetration of water recycling and

purification systems, and with the potential for increased use of conveyance for moving plant beds,

VFDs may offer increasing efficiency for these pumps and motors. However, VFDs are not appropriate

on all motors, so utilities should consider conducting targeted research into VFDs in greenhouses to

pinpoint realistic savings opportunities for this measure.

As growers turn toward automated vent controls and other automated systems, the industry may see a

corresponding increase in use of small motors. Many growers also use small fans for air movement.

Growers reported that they typically do not repair these fans, as the labor costs are too high to warrant

regular repair. Growers stated that they replace these fans regularly, and did not appear to prioritize

energy efficiency in small fans.

2.8.3 Irrigated Agriculture Findings

Irrigated Agriculture growers are increasingly aware of energy-efficiency opportunities, but cost

concerns drive their equipment decisions. Grower interviews suggest that farmers who pursue

efficiency measures do so either because they understand the long-term savings that they will achieve

with the installation, or because there was an incentive available to make high-efficiency measures cost-

competitive. Farmer’s rely heavily on their contractors for information about potential savings and

rebates. However, according to growers, contractors and utility staff now have less time to discuss

efficiency opportunities with them due to increased interest in efficient measures across the industry.

Some growers claimed that they are “at the whim” of contractors, and that contractors’ schedules may

not always align with those of the farmers. Due to time constraints, some farmers have begun installing

their own equipment. If this continues, it may result in missed opportunities in efficiency, as growers’

top priority is to get their equipment running rather than focus on system optimization or efficiency.

There may be opportunities for utilities to perform system optimization reviews beyond the standard

pump efficiency testing to ensure that farmers have properly designed and installed their systems.


Farmers are increasingly aware of the benefits of VFDs, although VFDs are more common in large

farms and on larger pumps. According to grower interviews, small and medium-sized growers are less

likely to have VFDs on their pumps, and are also less likely to see the benefits of VFDs. Educating and

offering incentives to smaller farms may therefore present an opportunity for future potential savings.

This opportunity will be particularly relevant if the market continues to move away from gravity-based

systems and toward pressurized systems such as drip because pressurized systems may require

increased pumping. If they have not already done so, utilities should consider conducting targeted

research into VFD applications to estimate energy saving potential from VFD applications on small

farms.

The irrigated agriculture market is moving toward the use of computerized systems to determine the

timing and quantity of their irrigation and fertilization practices. Although farmers see the benefits of

these systems, the upfront cost of the technology often prohibits farmers of all sizes from using these

technologies on a broad scale. Farmers are typically only able to afford one or two moisture sensors,

although they may have thousands of irrigated acres in operation. There may be energy saving

opportunities present in computerized systems, but utilities should ensure that the products they

incentivize are reliable, easy to use, and that the company is on-track to remain in business into the

future. If utilities do promote these computerized systems, they should also ensure that growers

understand how to use the systems; otherwise, they may not achieve the highest amount of savings

possible.


3 Recommendations

Based on a review of existing literature and market analyses, as well as in-depth interviews with IOU

program managers, SMEs, and growers, Navigant has developed the following recommendations for

California IOUs:

Schedule program marketing around the growing season, and conduct field tests, verifications,

installations, and rebates according to this schedule. Growers’ primary concern is that their equipment

is functioning properly during the planting, growing, and harvest seasons. Growers will therefore take

any action necessary to ensure their equipment is running, including installing lower-efficiency

equipment if it is available at the time they need it. If utilities do not align field tests with growers’

schedules, growers will be far less likely to install equipment that requires these field tests. Furthermore,

if growers must wait to install equipment until utilities can conduct a pre-inspection, then growers may

forgo the incentive and install whatever equipment is available. This may lead to growers installing

lower-efficiency equipment. By scheduling inspections and installations around the growing season,

utilities are more likely to encourage growers to install higher-efficiency equipment.

Focus on educating contractors on efficiency opportunities, and develop relationships with these

contractors. Contractors are an important source of information for agricultural growers. However, not

all contractors believe that measures such as VFDs offer energy savings. Furthermore, due to uncertainty

surrounding rebate availability, some contractors avoid promoting utility programs, as any variance in

the rebate amount or the time that it takes to receive a rebate can reflect poorly on the contractor.

Utilities should therefore work with contractors to ensure that they understand the benefits of efficient

equipment. In doing so, utilities may gain increased trust from their contractors, and contractors, in turn,

may be more inclined to promote high-efficiency measures.

Incorporate system optimization services into program offerings, in addition to pump efficiency

testing. Most irrigated agriculture respondents stated that they use the operating pressures from the

original system design. However, both utility staff and SMEs expressed concern over the original

designs. Respondents suggested that designers might overestimate the operating pressures to

compensate for error, which would unnecessarily increase energy use. Furthermore, settings may

naturally alter with the operation of the system over time. Utilities should take a systemic approach to

ensure that all components of a growers’ irrigation system are working synergistically and efficiently.

This may be more relevant for larger farms than for smaller farms; however, utilities should explore

potential savings in each. Utilities could provide these services to both irrigated agriculture and

greenhouse customers as an extension of their pump efficiency program. By offering system

optimization services, utilities could achieve increased savings from the system as a whole, as well as

gain a better understanding of how growers are designing their systems.

Consider incentivizing moisture sensors and other information-based technologies. Responses from

the interviews in this MASI suggest that the market already may be moving toward incorporating

computerized controls or information systems into their irrigation planning and systems operation. This


is true both of irrigated agriculture and of greenhouse operators. However, because of cost constraints,

some farmers who are interested in these technologies are having trouble incorporating moisture sensors

and other technologies across their operations, particularly for irrigated agriculture farmers. Incentives

from utilities could help farmers invest further in this equipment, which could result in both energy and

water conservation. However, while these systems typically can monitor factors such as energy and

water use, growers must account for other factors such as fertilization, weather, and other environmental

concerns. Therefore, any monitoring system that utilities might promote to growers would need to

incorporate tracking other key factors in addition to energy and water usage.

Look at small- and medium-sized pumps as well as large pumps for efficiency opportunities in

irrigated agriculture. While there are obvious savings available in targeting efficiency measures for large

pumps, both large and small growers often use smaller pumps, as well. In particular, smaller farms with

smaller irrigated plots may use small to mediums sized pumps for irrigation. Large farmers also tend to

operate plots that can be geographically distant from each other, and may therefore use small- to

medium-sized pumps for these plots. By targeting small- to medium-sized pumps as an area for

efficiency opportunities, rebates and efficiency information can apply to farmers of all sizes, rather than

simply targeting larger farms. This program offering can increase participation, as it is relevant to the

entire market segment.

Confidential and Proprietary Page A-1 Southern California Edison, Agriculture Market Segmentation and Characterization Study

Appendix A References

Al Hammadi, M., Jafar, B., Boquiang, L., Sarkissian, A., Meyer, C., Victor, D., Camara, J. (2014). The

Water-Energy Nexus: Strategic Considerations for Energy-Policy Makers. Geneva, Switzerland: World

Economic Forum.

California Climate Change Center. (2008). http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-500-2008-

077/CEC-500-2008-077.PDF.

California Climate Change Center. (2009). California Perennial Crops in a Changing Climate.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-039/CEC-500-2009-039-F.PDF.

California Department of Water Resources, 2010, Statewide Irrigation Methods Survey, California

Government, Retrieved from

http://www.water.ca.gov/landwateruse/docs/basicdata/ag/Statewide%20Irrigation%20Methods

%20Survey%20Data.xls

California Statewide Adaptation Strategy,

http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/documents/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy_-

_Chapter_8_-_Agriculture.pdf.

California Stormwater Quality Association. (2003). Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook. Menlo

Park, CA.

Canessa, P., Green, S., & Zoldoske, D. (2011). Agricultural Water Use in California: A 2011 Update. Fresno,

CA: The Center for Irrigation Technology.

CBS News. “California could be in for century-long megadrought.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-could-be-in-for-century-long-megadrought/.

Cullen, G., Swarts, D., & Mengelberg, U. (2009). Process Evaluation Report for the SCE Agricultural Energy

Efficiency Program (CALMAC Study ID SEC0287.01). Retrieved from http://www.calmac.org.

EPA. Southwest Impacts and Adaptation. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-

adaptation/southwest.html#impactsagriculture

Gallagher, A., Drotleff, L. and Wright, J., 2014, “2014 Top 100 List Shows Growers Are Expanding.”

Greenhouse Grower. Accessed from http://www.greenhousegrower.com/business-

management/top-100/2014-top-100-list-shows-growers-are-expanding/

Green Building Studio. (2005). Greenhouse Baseline Study Final Report. Petaluma, CA.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-500-2008-077/CEC-500-2008-077.PDF


http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-039/CEC-500-2009-039-F.PDF

http://www.water.ca.gov/landwateruse/docs/basicdata/ag/Statewide%20Irrigation%20Methods%20Survey%20Data.xls

http://www.water.ca.gov/landwateruse/docs/basicdata/ag/Statewide%20Irrigation%20Methods%20Survey%20Data.xls

http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/documents/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy_-_Chapter_8_-_Agriculture.pdf



http://www.calmac.org/

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southwest.html#impactsagriculture


http://www.greenhousegrower.com/business-management/top-100/2014-top-100-list-shows-growers-are-expanding/

http://www.greenhousegrower.com/business-management/top-100/2014-top-100-list-shows-growers-are-expanding/


Itron, Inc. (2010). 2006-2008 Evaluation Report for the Southern California Industrial and Agricultural Contract

Group (CALMAC Study ID: CPU0018.01). Retrieved from http://www.calmac.org.

Morris, M., & Lynne, V. (2006). Energy Saving Tips for Irrigators. Retrieved from

https://attra.ncat.org/publication.html.

Morris, M., & Lynne, V. (2006). Maintaining Irrigation Pumps, Motors, and Engines. Retrieved from


Morris, M., & Lynne, V. (2006). Measuring and Conserving Irrigation Water. Retrieved from


Natural Resources Defense Council & Pacific Institute. (2014). Agricultural Water Conservation and

Efficiency Potential in California. New York, NY.

Navigant Consulting, Inc. (2011). Literature Review for 2010-2012 Statewide Agricultural Energy Efficiency

Potential and Market Characterization Study. Boulder, CO. Retrieved from

http://www.calmac.org/publications/Ag_Study__Literature_Review_Final.pdf.

Navigant Consulting, Inc. (2013). Market Characterization Report for 2010-2012 Statewide Agricultural

Energy Efficiency Potential and Market Characterization Study. Boulder, CO. Retrieved from

http://www.calmac.org/publications/CA_Ag_Mrkt_Characterization_Final_5-13-13.pdf.

Navigant Consulting, Inc. (2013). 2013 California Energy Efficiency Potential and Goals Study.

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/nr/rdonlyres/29adacc9-0f6d-43b3-b7aa-

c25d0e1f8a3c/0/2013californiaenergyefficiencypotentialandgoalsstudynovember262013.pdf.

Navigant Consulting, Inc. & Heschong Mahone Group. (2012). Analysis to Update Energy Efficiency

Potential, Goals, and Targets for 2013 and Beyond.

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/5A1B455F-CC46-4B8D-A1AF-

34FAAF93095A/0/2011IOUServiceTerritoryEEPotentialStudyFinalReport.pdf.

Pacific Gas & Electric Company, prepared by Green Building Studio. (2008). Greenhouse Thermal Curtains

(Work Paper PGECOAGR101, Revision 0). San Francisco, CA.

Runkle, E., & Both, A.J. (2011). Greenhouse Energy Conservation Strategies. East Lansing, MI: Michigan

State University Extension.

Santa Cruz Sentinel. “Editorial: Cheap imports winning war of the roses.” Retrieved from:

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/opinion/20140807/editorial-cheap-imports-winning-war-of-

the-roses.

http://www.calmac.org/

https://attra.ncat.org/publication.html



http://www.calmac.org/publications/Ag_Study__Literature_Review_Final.pdf

http://www.calmac.org/publications/CA_Ag_Mrkt_Characterization_Final_5-13-13.pdf

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/nr/rdonlyres/29adacc9-0f6d-43b3-b7aa-c25d0e1f8a3c/0/2013californiaenergyefficiencypotentialandgoalsstudynovember262013.pdf

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/nr/rdonlyres/29adacc9-0f6d-43b3-b7aa-c25d0e1f8a3c/0/2013californiaenergyefficiencypotentialandgoalsstudynovember262013.pdf

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/5A1B455F-CC46-4B8D-A1AF-34FAAF93095A/0/2011IOUServiceTerritoryEEPotentialStudyFinalReport.pdf

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/5A1B455F-CC46-4B8D-A1AF-34FAAF93095A/0/2011IOUServiceTerritoryEEPotentialStudyFinalReport.pdf




The Australian. “US hay exports shrivel as Beijing rejects GM.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/us-hay-exports-shrivel-as-beijing-

rejects-gm/story-fnay3ubk-1227157131674

United States Agency for International Development, prepared by Winrock International. (2009).

Empowering Agriculture: Energy Options for Horticulture. Washington, DC: USAID.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Climate Impacts in the Southwest.” Retrieved from

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southwest.html#impactsagriculture.

University of California Agricultural Issues Center, 2013, California Agricultural Exports, California

Department of Food and Agriculture,

file:///C:/Users/kmidura/Downloads/2013_ExportsSection.pdf

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2007). 2007 Census of Agriculture. Retrieved from

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/.

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, California Field Office. (2012). California Agricultural

Statistics 2011 Crop Year. Retrieved from

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/California_Ag_Statistics/R

eports/2011cas-all.pdf.

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Pacific Regional Office-California. (2013). California

Agricultural Statistics 2012 Crop Year. Retrieved from

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/California_Ag_Statistics/R

eports/2012cas-all.pdf.


http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/.

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2008). 2008 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey. Retrieved

from

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigatio

n_Survey/.


http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/index.php#full_report.

White, M., Diffenbaugh, N., Jones, G., Pal, J., and Giorgi, F. (2006). Extreme heat reduces and shifts United

States premium wine production in the 21st century.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/30/11217.abstract.

Zabarenko, Deborah. (2006). “Climate Change Could Slash U.S. Wine Industry.”

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/4644.




http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/





http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigation_Survey/

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Farm_and_Ranch_Irrigation_Survey/

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/index.php#full_report

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/30/11217.abstract

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/4644

Confidential and Proprietary Page B-1 Southern California Edison, Agriculture Market Segmentation and Characterization Study

Appendix B Program Manager Interview Guide

Thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. To give you some background we are conducting

a market study on standard and emerging equipment installation practices in California’s greenhouses

and irrigated agriculture operations. As part of this study, we are interviewing IOU program managers

to gain an understanding of the utilities’ current programs, market trends, and utility customer

characteristics. The information you provide through this interview will provide context for this study

and help us to focus our subsequent interviews with subject matter experts, growers, and other market

actors.

As we go through these questions, please focus solely on your service area’s greenhouse operations and

irrigated agriculture operations, including field crops; fruit, tree nut, and vine crops; floriculture

operations; and vineyards and wineries.

B.1 Program Manager Introduction Questions

To begin, we would like to understand a little more about your utility’s agricultural program offerings.

1. Through email, we spoke briefly about your agricultural program offerings. Do your

agricultural programs target a particular type of customer, such as a particular market segment

or a particular size?

2. Are there any technical or market barriers that your agricultural programs currently face,

particularly as they relate to greenhouses and irrigated agriculture?

a. If so, what are these barriers (for the Greenhouse and Irrigated Agriculture segments,

specifically)?

b. How are you working to overcome these barriers?

3. Does your utility have specific marketing efforts targeting greenhouses and irrigated

agriculture?

a. In your experience, does your program successfully reach these market segments?

b. If not, what could be improved?

4. Do your participants typically grow certain types of crops (if so, which)?

5. Do you market your programs differently to agricultural customers than you would to other

types of customers?

a. What do these marketing efforts involve?

6. Do you track your agricultural program participants separately from industrial or other market

sectors?

7. Who do you find to be the key decision-makers when working with your agricultural customers

(i.e. are you typically working with owners, building managers, etc.)?

Confidential and Proprietary Page B-2 Southern California Edison, Agriculture Market Segmentation and Characterization Study

a. Does this vary by market segment?

b. Does this vary by crop type?

c. Does this vary by the size of the operation?

B.2 General Future Program Opportunities

8. Do you have any programs you are planning or that you envision launching in the near future?

9. When developing segment-specific program designs and/or marketing strategies for the 2016

program cycle, what information about the market is most important for you to consider?

Confidential and Proprietary Page C-1 Southern California Edison, Agriculture Market Segmentation and Characterization Study

Appendix C Subject Matter Expert Interview Guides

C.1 Greenhouses

Market Characteristics and Trends

» A major part of our study is understanding how energy use and equipment installation practices

differ between small and large greenhouse operations. To do so, we need to understand what

should constitute a ‘small’ vs. ‘large’ greenhouse operation. In your opinion, what is the best

way to characterize the size of a greenhouse operation? [For example, by square footage,

production, etc.]

» [IF NOT ENERGY CONSUMPTION] The utilities tend to characterize the size of a greenhouse

operation by its energy consumption. In your opinion, does this way of characterizing the

market have meaning for the greenhouse sector (i.e. does an energy-intensive operation typically

fall into the “large” category, and do low-energy operations typically fall into the “small”

category?

o [IF NO] Why is this an inappropriate way of categorizing the size of a greenhouse

operation?

o [IF YES] Are there exceptions to this (i.e. does the method of characterizing size based on

energy work for some crop types/market subsegments but not for others)?

» Around what size operation do you start to see changes in decision-making processes regarding

energy usage and equipment replacement practices?

Equipment Replacement Practices

» Our understanding is that owners will typically be the main energy and equipment decision-

makers on small greenhouses, while large greenhouses may have dedicated energy managers or

facilities managers that make equipment replacement decisions. Would you agree with that? If

no, why?

» When making equipment-related decisions, do you find that growers typically have an overall

system design in mind, or do they make decisions about individual components independent

from a design?

o Do you find that larger greenhouse operations tend to view their equipment as an

overall system, while smaller operations consider each piece of equipment

independently?

» For those who view their greenhouse equipment as a system design, what factors influence the

way in which growers design their greenhouse equipment?

o How does this vary for large vs. small operations?


o How does this vary by crop type (e.g. cut flowers vs. potted plants)?

» Have you seen any trends in greenhouse equipment types, for either small or large greenhouses?

» Would you say that most of today’s greenhouse installations in California are retrofits, or are

they new installations (either for new greenhouses or new additions to existing greenhouses)?

» To your knowledge, how do growers go about choosing and implementing new equipment? [IF

NECESSARY] What factors influence their equipment decisions?

» Our understanding is that existing greenhouse growers will typically repair their equipment as

much as they can rather than replacing it. Would you say this is accurate for both small and

large greenhouse operations?

» For equipment replacements, what factors influence growers’ decisions to replace on burnout vs.

early replacement equipment, for large and small operations?

Small:

Large:

» Are there any instances in which a grower would replace their equipment early rather than

repairing it? Please describe.

o How does this vary based on operation size?

Equipment and Utility Influence

» To your knowledge, is it typical for growers in small operations to track their energy usage?

» To your knowledge, is it typical for growers in large operations to track their energy usage?

o How do growers use this information?

Small:

Large:

» What processes are the most significant natural gas contributors in California greenhouse

operations, for both small and large operations (e.g. heating greenhouses, soil purification, etc.)?

Small:

Large:

o What equipment is/are involved in this/these process(es)?

» What processes are the most significant electric contributors in California greenhouse

operations, for both small and large operations (e.g. lighting, space cooling, etc.)?

Small:

Large:

o What equipment is/are involved in this/these process(es)?

» For this study, we’re trying to understand the specific equipment types that growers will

typically install in California greenhouses. Could you please describe the energy-efficient

equipment that you might find in the least sophisticated greenhouse and then equipment you

might find in the most sophisticated greenhouse for a California operation?


o Could you please describe the typical energy-efficient equipment that you might find in

a small California greenhouse (e.g. heat curtains, IR film, etc.)?

About what percent of small greenhouses in California would you say have

these technologies?

How does this vary by crop type?

o Could you please describe the typical energy-efficient equipment that you might find in

a large California greenhouse (e.g. heat curtains, IR film, etc.)?

About what percent of large greenhouses in California would you say have

these technologies?


» Are there any crops for which the representative energy-efficient equipment does not apply, for

small and/or for large greenhouses?

» How do the equipment usage practices differ between large and small operations (e.g. will large

operations run equipment for longer than small operations, etc.)?

» Do you find that there is a trend toward energy efficiency, whether in small operations, large

operations, or both?

o How does this vary by crop type?

» For this study, we’re particularly interested in a specific set of measures. I’m going to read the

list of greenhouse measures to you. Could you please let me know if you would consider these

measures to be standard installations in California greenhouses, for either small or large

greenhouses (i.e. growers typically install them in their greenhouses, regardless of whether or

not they are incentivized)? [READ LIST, CHECK THOSE THAT ARE STARNDARD – FOR

BOTH SMALL AND LARGE GREENHOUSES]


Equipment Type Large Greenhouses Small Greenhouses

Shade cloths

Infrared film

Shell insulation and

glazing

Double walls on new

construction


Boilers

Condenser fans

Unit heaters



Domestic water heaters

o [For those that are standard installations] Are these measures typically installed as retrofit

measures or new construction?

» Who would you say are the most influential groups on growers’ equipment purchasing and

installation choices (e.g. trade associations, other growers, utilities, etc.)?

o What are the reasons that these groups are influential for greenhouse operators?

o How do these groups interact with greenhouse operators?

» To your knowledge, when growers install energy-efficient technologies (in particular, IR film

and heat curtains), do they usually apply for or receive utility incentives?

o Is this true for both large and small greenhouses?

» Do growers typically wait for an incentive before installing a new technology?

» Do you think that growers would still install incentivized technologies if there was not an

incentive available to them?

o Are there any particular, existing technologies that growers currently would NOT install

without a utility incentive?

» When contractors work with growers on equipment replacement, do they typically promote

individual components that have rebates associated with them, or do they look at whole system

optimization for the greenhouse?

» On a scale of 1-10, where 1 is not influential and 10 is very influential, how influential are

utilities’ programs on growers’ energy equipment replacement practices?


o How does this vary by:

Greenhouse size

Replacement vs. new construction installations

Crop type

Future Opportunities

» Are there any existing technologies that you think will contribute heavily to operational energy

savings in the future?

» Are there any emerging or state-of-the-art technologies that you think will contribute heavily to

operational energy savings in the future?

» Do you know of any agricultural markets, either domestic or abroad, that you would consider to

be progressive in terms of equipment and energy efficiency (e.g. Europe)?

o If so, what about these markets makes them progressive?

» What technologies do growers in these markets use that are not as widely used within California

agriculture?

Close

» Do you have any suggestions for other subject matter experts whom you think we should

interview for this study?

» Are there any other market actors (e.g. manufacturers, trade associations) with whom you think

we should talk?

» Are there any growers that you would suggest we interview for this study?

» Is there anything else related to California greenhouses or greenhouse equipment that you think

we should know?

» Thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. If we have further questions, would it be

alright to reach out to you?

Thank you again, have a great day.


C.2 Irrigated Agriculture

Market Characteristics and Trends

» A major part of our study includes understanding how energy use and equipment installation

practices differ between small and large farms. To do so, we need to understand what should

constitute a ‘small’ vs. ‘large’ farm. In your opinion, what is the best way to characterize the size

of a farm? [For example, by acreage, production, etc.]

» [IF NOT ENERGY CONSUMPTION] The utilities tend to characterize the size of a farm by its

energy consumption. In your opinion, does this way of characterizing the market have meaning

for the irrigated agriculture sector (i.e. does an energy-intensive farm typically fall into the

“large” category, and do low-energy farms typically fall into the “small” category?

o [IF NO] Why is this an inappropriate way of categorizing the size of a farm?

o [IF YES] Are there exceptions to this (i.e. does the method of characterizing size based on

energy work for some crop types/market subsegments but not for others)?

» Around what size farm do you start to see changes in decision-making processes regarding

energy usage and equipment replacement practices?

Irrigation System Design

» When making equipment-related decisions, do you find that growers typically have an overall

system design in mind, or do they make decisions about individual components independent

from a design?

o Do you find that larger farms tend to view their equipment as an overall system, while

smaller farms consider each piece of equipment independently?

» For those who view their irrigation systems as a system design, what factors influence the way

in which growers design their irrigation systems?

o How does this vary for large vs. small farms?

o How does this vary by crop type (e.g. tree vs. field crops)?

o How does this vary by irrigation system type?

» For this study, we’re trying to understand what current irrigation systems look like on California

farms, in terms of design, maintenance, and usage practices. Could you please describe the least

sophisticated irrigation system and then the most sophisticated irrigation system for a California

farm?

o Could you please describe a representative irrigation system for a small farm?

About what percent of small farms in California would you say have this

irrigation system type?



o Could you please describe a representative irrigation system for a large farm?

About what percent of large farms in California would you say have this

irrigation system type?


o Are there any crops for which the representative irrigation system type does not apply,

for small and/or for large farms?

» When California growers install equipment on their farms, is it typically as a

replacement/retrofit or are they new installations?

o [IF NEW INSTALLATIONS], Is this typically on ground that has never been previously

used for agriculture, or is this for existing agricultural land where the farmer is planting

a new crop?

» Our understanding is that farmers will typically repair their equipment as much as they can

rather than replacing it. Would you say this is accurate for both small and large farms?

o In what instance might a farmer replace their equipment early (rather than repairing it

or using it until it burns out)?

o How does this vary based on farm size?

» To your knowledge, how do growers go about choosing and implementing new equipment? [IF

NECESSARY] What factors influence their equipment decisions?

» What are the most common irrigation control types for large and for small farms?

o How does this vary by crop?

» Have you seen any trends in irrigation equipment types or system design in recent years, for

either small or large farms?

o [IF PRESSURE CONVERSION WAS NOT AN ANSWER] Do you find that there is a

trend toward lower-pressure irrigation systems, whether in small farms, large farms, or

both?


Equipment Replacement Practices

» To your knowledge, is it typical for growers on small farms to track their energy usage?

» To your knowledge, is it typical for growers on large farms to track their energy usage?

o How do growers use this information?

Small:

Large:


» Our understanding is that owners will typically be the main energy and equipment decision-

makers on small farms, while large farms may have dedicated energy managers or facilities

managers that make equipment replacement decisions. Would you agree with that statement?

» Could you please give a brief description of the energy-efficiency and energy-using equipment

that you would find on a typical:

o Row or field crop farm:

o Fruit, tree nut, or vine-crop orchard:

o Vineyard:

o How does this equipment vary by farm size?

» For this study, we’re particularly interested in a specific set of technologies. These technologies

include:

o Irrigation controls, particularly on small farms

o Irrigation delivery systems

o Pump types

o Water purification systems

o Water recycling systems

o Moisture level sensors

o Pump efficiency testing

» Could you please tell me, in your experience, what are the most common:

o Pump types, on small and large farms:

o Water purification systems, on small and large farms:

o Water recycling systems, on small and large farms:

» To your knowledge, approximately what percentage of California farms use moisture sensors?

o How does that vary between large and small farms?

o What are the most common types of moisture level sensors on small and large farms?

» Are there any technologies in particular that you think utilities should incentivize for the

California Ag growers?

» Do you find that farmers typically get regular pump tests?

o How does this vary by small vs. large farms?

o Do growers typically receive rebates for their pump tests?

o [IF YES] Do you think growers would get regular pump tests if there were no incentives

available for them?


» To your knowledge, when growers install irrigation technologies (e.g. irrigation distribution

systems, pump controls, etc.), do they usually apply for or receive utility incentives?

o Do growers typically wait for an incentive before installing a new technology?

o Do you think that growers would still install incentivized technologies if there was not

an incentive available to them?

o Are there any existing technologies that growers currently would NOT install without a

utility incentive?

» When contractors work with growers on equipment replacement, do they typically promote

individual technologies or components that have rebates associated with them (e.g. VFD on a

pump), or do they look at whole system optimization for the farm (e.g. pump optimization for

all pumps)?

» Who would you say has the most influence over growers’ equipment purchasing and

installation choices (e.g. utilities, trade associations, other growers, etc.)?

» On a scale of 1-10, where 1 is not influential and 10 is very influential, how influential are

utilities’ programs on growers’ energy equipment replacement practices?

o How does this vary by:

Farm size

Replacement vs. new construction installations

Crop type

Water Conservation

» Could you please describe any common practices in irrigation scheduling that you are aware of

among irrigated agriculture growers?

o How does this vary by farm size?

» What actions are growers taking to reduce water usage?

» To what extent are growers water-stressing their crops to reduce water usage?

» In your opinion, to what extent would growers be making concerted efforts to conserve water if

they were not in drought conditions?

» In what ways has the drought changed irrigation practices on California farms so far?

o How does this vary for large vs. small farms?

Future Opportunities

» Are there any existing technologies that you think will contribute heavily to on-farm energy

savings in the future?


» Are there any emerging or state-of-the-art technologies that you think will contribute heavily to

on-farm energy savings in the future?

» Do you know of any agricultural markets, either domestic or abroad, that you would consider

progressive in terms of equipment and energy efficiency (e.g. Europe)?

o If so, what about these markets makes them progressive?

o What technologies do growers in these markets use that are not as widely used within

California agriculture?

Close

» Do you have any suggestions for other subject matter experts whom you think we should

interview for this study?

» Are there any other types of market actor (e.g. manufacturers, trade associations) with whom

you think we should talk?

» Are there any growers that you would suggest we interview for this study?

» Is there anything else related to California irrigated agriculture or irrigation equipment that you

think we should know?

» Thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. If we have further questions, would it be


Confidential and Proprietary Page D-1 Southern California Edison, Agriculture Market Segmentation and Characterization Study

Appendix D Grower Interview Guide

D.1 Greenhouses

Thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. To give you some background we are conducting

a market study on equipment installation practices in California’s greenhouse operations. As part of this

study, we are interviewing growers to understand what equipment you are installing in your

greenhouses and how you make decisions about your equipment. The information you provide will help

utilities to determine the best equipment to incentivize in future programs.

Throughout this interview, I will make references to greenhouse “equipment.” To clarify; by equipment,

I mean any energy-using technologies within a greenhouse, such as fans, water heaters, irrigation

distribution systems, VFDs, etc. In this context, I will also use this term to refer to energy-efficient

additions to the greenhouse structure/envelope, such as heat curtains, infrared film, wall glazing, etc.

Before we begin, do you have any questions about the study or about how I am using the term

“equipment”?

Intro

1. What are the main crops that your greenhouse operation produces?

2. Do you produce this same main product yearly, or do you rotate or change your crop based on

the season or other factors?

3. Approximately how many square feet of greenhouse space do you own and/or operate?

4. Approximately what percentage of your greenhouse space has been built in the last 5 years?

5. Do you consider yourself to be a small, medium or large operation? What are the reasons you

would classify yourself as this size?

6. Is all your greenhouse space located at once site, or do you have multiple sites operating under

one operation?

7. Which processes and equipment use the most electricity in your operation?

8. Which processes or equipment in your operation use the most natural gas?

Decision-making Practices

9. What systems, methods, or equipment do you use to track energy and water usage?

10. Do you track production? If so, how do you track this and what do you do with the information?

11. Could you please describe your decision-making process when deciding to install new

equipment or replace existing equipment?


12. Do you typically work with a contractor, vendor, retailer or consultant when installing

equipment?

a. On a scale of 1-10, how influential are contractors, vendors, retailers or consultants on

your choice of equipment?

13. Is there anyone else who influences your equipment installation decisions?

New Construction [IF NC GREENHOUSES > 0%]

14. [IF the respondent has built new greenhouses within the last 5 years] Thinking only about the

greenhouse space that you’ve built within the last five years, how many layers of glazing and/or

shell insulation did you install when you built these greenhouses?

15. [IF YES] Was any of this glazing or insulation rebated?

a. If so, approximately what percent of the glazing or insulation was incentivized or

rebated?

b. If a rebate had not been available, would you still have installed the same type and

amount of glazing or insulation?

c. On a scale of 1-10, how influential was the rebate on your decision to install additional

glazing or insulation on your greenhouses?

Insulation – Retrofit (IF NC GREENHOUSES < 100%)

16. For your greenhouses that are over 5 years old, or for any greenhouses on which you installed

additional glazing or insulation, how many layers of glazing do your greenhouses currently

have?

17. What type of glazing or insulation do you have on your older greenhouses?

18. Do you have any other forms of shell insulation on your older greenhouses?

19. In the last five years, have you added additional glazing or insulation to any of your older

greenhouses?

a. If so, how many layers did you originally have and how many layers did you add?

b. Did you receive a rebate for your additional glazing or insulation?

i. If a rebate had not been available, would you still have installed the additional

glazing or insulation?

ii. On a scale of 1-10, how influential was the rebate on your decision to install

additional glazing or insulation on your greenhouses?

20. Do you have any plans to add additional layers of glazing or insulation in the near future?

a. What type of glazing or insulation do you plan to install on your greenhouses?

b. How many layers or glazing or insulation do you plan to install?


c. On a scale of 1-10, where 1 is not at all likely and 10 is very likely, what is the likelihood

that you will add this glazing or insulation if there is NO REBATE/INCENTIVE

AVAILABLE?

Other Measures

I am now going to read you a list of equipment types. Again, by “equipment” I mean any energy-using

technologies within a greenhouse, such as fans, water heaters, irrigation distribution systems, VFDs, etc.

In this context, this term also includes technologies relating to the greenhouse structure/envelope, such

as heat curtains, infrared film, wall glazing, etc.

As I read through the list, please tell me whether you currently have any of the technologies in your

greenhouses? If you do have them, please also tell me what level of efficiency each technology is, the

approximate square footage of greenhouse space it serves, and the last time that you replaced any of this

equipment?:

Equipment Type Have?

(Yes/No) Efficiency Level

Square Footage

Served Last Replaced

Infrared Film

Heat Curtains

Shade Cloths

Boilers

Condenser Fans

Unit Heaters

Geothermal Heat

Pumps

Bench (radiant)

Heating

Domestic Water

Heaters

21. When you installed or replaced this equipment, did you receive a rebate or incentive for any of

it?

a. [For each equipment type] If you had not received a rebate or incentive for the

equipment, would you still have installed

i. The same type of equipment?

ii. Same level of efficiency?

iii. Same amount?


iv. Would you have installed it at the same time?

b. On a scale of 1-10, how influential was the rebate on your decision to install this

equipment?

22. Do you plan to replace any of this equipment in the near future? If so, which?

a. [If yes] On a scale of 1-10, where 1 is not at all likely and 10 is very likely, what is the

likelihood that you will replace this equipment if there is NO REBATE/INCENTIVE

AVAILABLE?

23. Are there any other energy- or water- efficient equipment that you’ve installed in your

greenhouses in the last five years? (Please elaborate)

a. How many/much (equipment type) did you install?

b. Was this equipment installed as a retrofit, a replacement, or was it installed in a new

greenhouse? [Ask for each equipment type]

c. Did you receive rebates for any of this equipment? [Identify which equipment was

rebated]

i. Who did you receive the rebate from (i.e. which utility)?

Irrigation Equipment

24. What do you use water for in your operations (e.g. irrigation, cleaning, etc.)?

25. Where does your irrigation water come from (e.g. well, irrigation channel, river, etc.)?

26. What type of water/irrigation distribution system(s) do you have in your greenhouses?

27. How long have you had your current irrigation system in place?

a. [If <5 years] What type of irrigation system did you have before this one?

b. [If <5 years] What is the reason that you changed irrigation system types?

28. Could you please describe your irrigation practices (e.g. when do you irrigate and for how long,

at what operating pressure, how do you decide when to irrigate, etc.)? How does this vary with

the crop?

29. Do you have a water purification system in your greenhouses?

a. What do you use this for?

b. How old is this system?

c. What capacity is this system?

30. Do you have a water recycling systems in your greenhouses?





Motors

31. Do you use any motors in your operation? [IF NO, SKIP TO NEXT SECTION]

a. If so, what are your motors used for?

32. What typical size range of motors does your facility use? What is the predominant size?

33. What is the approximate age of your motor equipment?

34. What types of motors do you use in your operation? (i.e. DC, AC, AC permanent magnet motors

etc.,)

35. How do you approach motor replacements and/or upgrades? (e.g. do you have a phased

schedule or bulk replacement strategy, replace on failure system, green motor rewind, repair

versus replace views, etc.?)

a. What are the costs and drivers associated with replacing vs. repairing motors?

b. Are there any motors that you consistently repair or rewind rather than replacing?

c. What would motivate you to replace those?

36. We would like to understand if there are any motor efficiency or operational practices that are

considered “standard” by your organization?

a. Do you take any energy-efficiency efforts that go beyond regulations (e.g. have you

installed VFDs on your motors, do you perform system optimization more frequently

than required, etc.)?

37. What specific resources and services do you use to learn about motor efficiency opportunities?

(e.g. how do you inform yourself about energy efficiency, O&M activities, new technologies and

equipment, etc.?)

b. Do you consider utility rebate programs for motors? Why or why not?

38. What are the drivers behind your efforts to pursue energy-efficiency opportunities for your

motor equipment or process changes? (e.g. energy savings vs. maintenance [cost & time] savings

etc.?)

39. Do you use VFDs on your pump(s)? (determine number of pumps, HP, well or booster)

40. (If yes) Why did you decide to install a VFD?

41. (If yes) Did you receive an incentive or grant from your utility or another organization for the

VFD?

42. (If yes) Did you install the VFD at the time your pump was new or as a later addition?

43. (If not) Did you consider installing a VFD? (If yes) What factors did you consider?


Emerging Equipment

44. Are there any state-of-the-art water- or energy-efficient technologies that you’ve heard of that

you would be interested in installing in your greenhouses?

a. If your utility offered a rebate for these technologies, would you be willing to implement

them in your greenhouses?

Close

45. Are there any other growers you can suggest we speak with for this study?

a. If so, could you please provide their name and contact information?

46. Is there anything else about your greenhouse operation that you think we should know?

47. Thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. If we have further questions, would it be


Those are all the questions that I have for you today. Thank you again for your time, have a great day.


D.2 Irrigated Agriculture

Thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. To give you some background, we are conducting

a market study on irrigation system design on California’s irrigated farmland. As part of this study, we

are interviewing growers to understand how you are designing and using your irrigation systems. The

information you provide will help utilities to determine the best ways to provide incentives in the future.

Throughout this interview, I will make references to farm “equipment.” To clarify; by equipment, I mean

any energy-using technologies on your farm, such as pumps, motors, irrigation distribution systems,

VFDs, etc. Before we begin, do you have any questions about the study or about how I am using the

term “equipment”?

Intro

1. What are the main crops that you grow on your farm?

2. Do you produce this same main product yearly, or do you rotate or change your crop based on

the season or other factors?

3. Approximately how many acres of agricultural land do you own and/or operate on this farm?

a. How many of these acres do you irrigate?

4. Approximately what percentage of your irrigated land have you added last 5 years, if any?

5. Do you consider yourself to be a small, medium, or large operation? What are the reasons that

you classify yourself as this size?

6. Which processes and equipment use the most electricity in your operation?

7. Which processes or equipment in your operation use the most natural gas?

Decision-Making Practices

8. What systems, methods, or equipment do you use to track energy and water usage?

a. Do you track your water distribution uniformity? If so, how do you track this and what

do you do with the information?

b. Do you track production? If so, how do you track this and what do you do with the

information?

c. Do you use moisture sensors or irrigation controls, such as timers, automatic pump

controls, SMS, flow meters, on-farm weather stations, etc.? (Probe which they use)

i. [IF NO?] What might motivate you in the future to install irrigation controls on

your irrigation system?

9. Could you please describe your decision-making process when deciding to install new

equipment or replace existing equipment? (If necessary, prompt – how did you decide what to


install, when to install it, what alternatives they considered, and did they look at first cost only

or lifecycle cost?)

Irrigation System Design

10. What type of irrigation or water delivery system(s) do you have? [DO NOT PROMPT, but if they

need clarification, give examples: impact sprinkler, center pivot, hand-move sprinkler,

subsurface drip, etc.]

11. How long have you had your current irrigation system in place?

a. [If <5 years] What type of irrigation system did you have before this one?

b. [If <5 years] What is the reason that you changed irrigation system types?

Irrigation System Usage

12. At what operating pressure do you typically run your irrigation system at the pump?

a. Was this the operating pressure that the system was originally designed for, or did you

change it after the system was installed? If you changed it, why?

b. How do you monitor your operating pressure?

13. Have you changed your water scheduling practices in the last 5 years? What are the reasons that

you made these changes in your water usage?

14. Could you please describe how you schedule your irrigation?

a. How do you decide how long of sets to run?

b. How do these practices change depending on the time of year?

15. Have you changed your water usage practices in the last 5 years? If so, please elaborate.

16. Would you please describe your maintenance practices that you use for your irrigation

equipment? For instance, do you have a regular maintenance schedule for your irrigation

equipment or do you perform maintenance as necessary?

17. On a scale of 1-10, how likely is it that you would have adopted these changes if California had

not been in drought conditions?

18. Do you have a water purification system on your farm?




19. Do you have a water recycling systems on your farm?





Pumps and Motors

20. Where does your irrigation water come from (e.g. well, irrigation channel, river, etc.)?

a. [IF WELL] How deep is your well?

21. How many pumps and motors do you currently have in operation on your irrigated farmland?

(Record both # pumps and # motors)

22. Do you use motors for anything other than irrigation pumping on your farm? (If so, please

elaborate)

a. If so, what are your motors used for?

b. What typical size (horsepower) range of motors does your facility use? What is the

predominant size?

c. What is the approximate age of your motor equipment?

d. What types of motors do you use in your operation? (i.e. DC, AC, AC permanent

magnet motors etc.,)

23. What types of pumps do you have how many of each pump type do you have (e.g. submersible,

turbine, end-suction centrifugal, etc.)?

a. [IF NOT ALREADY ANSWERED] Do you have booster pumps on any of your irrigation

lines (how many)?

24. What are the sizes (hp) of your pumps? [ASK FOR EACH PUMP TYPE]

25. How many of these pumps did you install in the last 5 years? Were these replacement pumps or

new pumps?

a. For new pumps, were these installed on new wells and/or land that was not previous

used for agricultural purposes?

b. Did you receive an incentive for any of these pumps?

c. [IF YES] On a scale of 1-10, if the incentive had not been available to you, what is the

likelihood that you would have installed the same pump at the same time?

26. How do you typically approach replacements and/or upgrades for your pumps and motors?

(e.g. do you have a phased schedule or bulk replacement strategy, replace on burnout, repair

versus replace views, etc.?)

a. What are the costs and drivers associated with replacing vs. repairing pumps and

motors?

b. When you buy a new pump or motor, how do you decide what efficiency level to

purchase and install?


27. Would you please describe your pump and motor maintenance practices? For instance, do you

have a regular maintenance schedule for your or do you perform maintenance as necessary?

28. Are there any efficiency practices (e.g. regular motor rewinds or pump efficiency testing) that

you would consider a standard practice for your operation?

29. How frequently do you perform pump efficiency tests on your pumps?

a. Are these pump tests typically subsidized by your utility?

b. Would you perform regular pump tests if there were no subsidies available? Why or

why not?

c. When you get pump tests, do you typically test all your pumps, or only one pump at a

time?

d. What do you do with the information that you get from pump efficiency tests?

e. What would motivate you to replace your pumps before they fail?

30. What specific resources and services do you use to learn about motor efficiency opportunities?

(e.g. how do you inform yourself about energy efficiency, O&M activities, new technologies and

equipment, etc.?)

a. Do you consider utility rebate programs for efficient motors? Why or why not?

31. What are the drivers behind your efforts to pursue energy-efficiency opportunities for your

motor equipment or process changes? (e.g. energy savings vs. maintenance [cost & time] savings

etc.?)

32. Do you use VFDs on your pump(s)? (determine number of pumps, HP, well or booster)

33. (If yes) Why did you decide to install a VFD?

34. (If yes) Did you receive an incentive or grant from your utility or another organization for the

VFD?

35. (If yes) Did you install the VFD at the time your pump was new or as a later addition?

36. (If not) Did you consider installing a VFD? (If yes) What factors did you consider?

Other Equipment Installations

37. In the last five years, have you installed any other equipment or taken any other actions that we

haven’t discussed in order to conserve water or energy? Please elaborate.

38. Are there any state-of-the-art water- or energy-efficient technologies that you’ve heard of that

you would be interested in installing on you irrigated farmland?

39. Is there anything that utilities can do to help you more effectively manage your water and

energy?


Close

40. Are there any other growers you think we should speak with for this study?

a. If so, could you please provide their name and contact information?

41. Is there anything else about your operation that you think we should know?

42. Thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. If we have further questions, would it be


Those are all the questions that I have for you today. Thank you again for your time, have a great day.

Confidential and Proprietary Page E-12 Southern California Edison, Agriculture Market Segmentation and Characterization Study

Appendix E Environmental Trends

This Appendix includes an excerpt from Navigant’s 2010-2012 Agriculture Market Characterization,

which describes the effects of changing environmental conditions on California’s agricultural

subsesegments.

Environmental Impacts on Fruit, Tree Nut & Vine; Greenhouses & Nurseries; Field Crops

Both fluctuations in degree days and the shortage of reliable water will negatively influence the

production of many of California’s most crucial crops. In particular, increasing temperatures are leading

to the decline in winter chill hours, or the number of hours below a certain temperature in which a plant

remains dormant before spring growth (see Error! Reference source not found.). This trend has the most

ignificant impact on fruit and tree nuts, which depend on winter chill hours to properly set fruit.

Insufficient chill hours can result in late blooming, which in turn decreases fruit quality and economic

yield.30 A 2008 study commissioned by the California Energy Commission found that declining chill

hours has had the greatest negative impact on cherries, while high spring temperatures have brought the

most harm to the production of almonds – California’s most valuable perennial crop.31 None of the

studies identified benefits to increased temperatures, indicating that the warming climate will only

negatively influence crop yield and quality, and in turn, California’s agricultural market.

Figure 4. Observed and Projected Temperature Change in the Southwest, Compared to a 1960-1979

Baseline Period

Source: EPA32

30 California Climate Change Center, 2008. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-500-2008-077/CEC-500-

2008-077.PDF. 31 California Climate Change Center, 2009, California Perennial Crops in a Changing Climate.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-039/CEC-500-2009-039-F.PDF.



http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-500-2009-039/CEC-500-2009-039-F.PDF


Water scarcity will further harm crop yields in these market segments. Climate change studies across the

board identify a drying trend throughout California, as available water from both the Sierra Nevada

snow packs and from precipitation has declined (see Error! Reference source not found.). These factors

an lead to extreme water shortages or drought, effectively limiting the water available for irrigation.

Moreover, warming temperatures across the globe are leading to sea level rise. At a localized level, this

is resulting in saltwater intrusion in the Delta region and the Salinas and Monterey areas, which could

further restrict fresh water resources.33 The climate-induced trends discussed here may direct crop

selection toward row crops, which are less dependent on long-term water supplies and winter

temperatures. However, crops of all types will likely suffer from the effects of climate change.

Figure 5. Spring Precipitation Change for 2080-2099 Compared to 1961-1979 under Two Emissions

Scenarios

Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Climate Impacts in the Southwest.”

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southwest.html#impactsagriculture. 1 California Statewide Adaptation Strategy.

32 United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Climate Impacts in the Southwest.”

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southwest.html#impactsagriculture. 33 California Statewide Adaptation Strategy.

http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/documents/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy_-_Chapter_8_-

_Agriculture.pdf.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southwest.html%23impactsagriculture

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/southwest.html%23impactsagriculture




Water scarcity will not only harm crop yields, but could also result in financial losses and further trickle-

down effects for the California’s crop-producing market segments. Population growth in urban areas is

notably increasing throughout California, creating further competition for water resources between

urban and agricultural customers. Research has found that droughts, competition for resources, and

water delivery constraints have “led to losses in excess of $1 billion annually to Central Valley

agriculture, translating to tens of thousands of lost jobs, and a reduction in world food supply.”34 Studies

estimate that if fresh water availability were more than 20 percent below demand, the agricultural

market would incur annual costs of $200 million.35 Liabilities such as these could inhibit lending from

financial institutions in the future, which could further limit growers’ abilities to invest in their

businesses or in energy-efficient technologies.

Environmental Impacts on Vineyards & Wineries

Due to the nature of the wine grape crop, the Vineyards & Wineries market segment will see slightly

different effects on their production as compared to other crop segments. Because grape growth requires

less water than other crops, water shortages will have less of an impact on this particular segment.

Rather, the change in ambient temperature will have the most significant effect on California wine grape

production.

Premium wine grape production requires moderate climate and weather conditions, including adequate

heat, low risk of severe frost damage, and a lack of extreme heat.36 Given the needed conditions, wine

grape production will presumably decrease with the higher prevalence of hot days. According to a 2006

study on the effects of extreme heat on premium wine production,37 certain regions in the US could see

as many as 60 extreme hot days per season. The most heat-tolerant wine grapes can only withstand

about 14 days of extreme heat, suggesting that much of California’s premium wine production will not

be able to withstand the rising temperatures.38 Noah Diffenbaugh, the study’s co-author, stated during

an interview: “We see production disappearing essentially in what are the prime producing areas, which

is Napa Valley, Sonoma Valley, the Santa Barbara area [California] and the Willamette Valley

[Oregon].”39 Future production will likely be limited to coastal and northern areas, predominantly in

Oregon and Washington, to the detriment of the California wine market.

Energy Impacts from Environmental Trends

These environmental trends will have the most significant impacts on the California agricultural market

through water shortages and higher temperatures. Because of these factors, the industry will likely

increase energy usage for irrigation, space cooling and refrigeration. Water shortages and increasing

resource competition with urban populations could potentially force agricultural customers to pump

water from new sources such as aquifers and potentially desalination efforts. Market segments such as

34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 White, M., Diffenbaugh, N., Jones, G., Pal, J., and Giorgi, F.,2006, Extreme heat reduces and shifts United States

premium wine production in the 21st century. http://www.pnas.org/content/103/30/11217.abstract. 37 Ibid. 38 Zabarenko, Deborah, 2006,“Climate Change Could Slash U.S. Wine Industry.”

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/4644. 39 Ibid.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/30/11217.abstract

http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/4644


refrigerated warehousing, post-harvest processing, and dairies will increase energy use for refrigeration

to ensure the quality of their products. Livestock-related segments such as dairies and feedlots will

devote more energy toward the cooling of their livestock to promote high levels of productivity and

reproduction. The majority of increased energy usage is likely to be electrical in nature. Potential

increases in natural gas usage may come from increased irrigation using natural gas-fired pumps.

Utilities can help manage these increases in energy use by working with agricultural customers to

implement high-efficiency technologies in key areas. High-efficiency pumps, advanced refrigeration

technologies, improved building shells, and cooling and ventilation technologies should be the focal

points for utilities looking to combat the effects of climate change. Moreover, utilities can promote the

use of proper irrigation scheduling, particularly for market segments with older equipment and crops

that require heavy watering. By properly scheduling irrigation patterns, growers may be able to

simultaneously manage water usage while using electricity during off-peak hours.

Other market trends directly affect the Greenhouse and irrigated agriculture segments. The following

subsections describe these trends in further detail.

measure, application, segment, industry (masi) · irrigation measures domestic water heaters water...

Documents